BT  21  . H3313  1867  v.2 
Hagenbach,  K.  R.  1801-1874. 
A  text-book  of  the  history 
of  doctrines 

— _ __ _ ; _ ...  , 

n/v  a. 


J 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/textbookofhistor02hage 


f 


' 


L 

t 

! 

I 


A 


TEXT-BOOK 


OP  T  H  IS 


HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINES. 


BY 

DR.  K.  R.  HAGENBACH, 

FB0FE880R  OF  THEOLOGY  IN  THE  IT  N  I  V  E  R  8  I  T  Y  OF  BAgLK. 


*  THE  EDINBURGH  TRANSLATION  OF  C.  W.  BUCH,  REVISED  WITH  LARGE  ADDITIONS 
FROM  THE  FOURTH  GERMAN  EDITION,  AND  OTHER  SOURCES. 

By  HENRY  B.  SMITH,  D.D., 

FBOFESSOR  IN  THE  UNION  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


VOLUME  II. 


NEW  YORK: 

SHELDON  &  COMPANY,  500  BROADWAY, 

BOSTON:  GOULD  &  LINCOLN. 


18  6  7 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1862,  by 
SHELDON  &  COMPANY, 

la  the  Clerk’s  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York, 


STEREOTYPED  BY 

Smith  &  MoDougal, 
82  &  84  Beekman-st. 


PRINTED  BY 

George  Russell 
T9  John-street. 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 


In  preparing  this  revision  of  the  second  volume  of  Hagenbaclr  s 
History  of  Doctrines,  the  same  plan  has  been  pursued  as  in  the 
first  volume.  The  translation  has  been  corrected  throughout.  All 
the  additional  matter  of  the  fourth  German  edition,  which  was 
very  considerable  in  the  later  periods,  has  been  translated.  The 
references  to  English  and  American  literature  are  made  as  full  as 
the  limits  of  the  text-book  allow.  In  addition  to  this,  new  sections 
have  been  added,  on  portions  of  the  History  of  Doctrines  not  fully 
handled,  or  wholly  neglected  in  the  original,  viz.  The  German  Re¬ 
formed  Theology,  pp.  175-177  ;  The  French  School  of  Saumur,  and 
Theology  in  England  and  Scotland,  pp.  180-194 ;  The  English 
Deism,  pp.  223-229  ;  and  five  sections,  pp.  416-451,  on  the  History 
of  Theology  and  Philosophy  in  England,  Scotland,  and  our  own 
country. — The  literature  of  English  and  American  theology  is  given 
with  disproportionate  fulness,  in  the  hope  that  this  may  be  a  con¬ 
venience  to  ministers  and  students,  as  it  is  not  elsewhere  collected 
in  a  compendious  form. 


h.  b.  a 


. 


. 

' 


i  I . 


' 

'  ■■  >* 


■ 

- 


■  . 


s, 


■ 


/ 


X 


CONTENTS 


THIRD  PERIOD. 

THE  AGE  OF  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

(continued.) 

THIRD  DIVISION. 

ANTHROPOLOGY. 

FAGS 

§173.  General  Definitions..... . . .  13 

174.  The  Immortality  of  the  Soul .  16 

175.  Man  in  his  State  of  Innocence  prior  to  the  Fall .  17 

176.  The  Fall  of  Man,  and  Sin  in  General .  22 

177.  Consequences  of  the  First  Sin.  Original  Sin.  Freedom  of  the  Will .  25 

178.  Exception  to  the  Universal  Corruption  of  Mankind.  The  Immaculate  Concep¬ 

tion  of  the  Virgin .  29 

FOURTH  DIVISION. 

CHRISTOLO  GY  AND  SOTERIOLOGY. 

§  179.  The  Greek  Church  on  Christology.  The  Adoption  Controversy  in  the  West 

Nihilianism. . . 35 

180.  Redemption  and  Atonement . 41 

181.  Further  Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  Redemption  and  Atonement. . .  46 

182.  The  Connection  between  Soteriology  and  Christology .  51 

FIFTH  DIVISION. 

THE  ORDO  8ALUTIS. 

§  183.  Predestination.  The  Controversy  of  Gottschalk .  56 

184.  Further  Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  Predestination. .  60 

185.  Appropriation  of  Divine  Grace .  63 

186.  Faith  and  Good  Works.  The  Meritoriousness  of  the  latter .  67 


vi 


Contents. 


SIXTH  DIVISION. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  SACRAMENTS. 

§  187.  The  Church . . .  71 

188.  The  Worship  of  Saints .  74 

189.  The  Sacraments .  76 

190.  The  same  Subject  continued .  80 

191.  Baptism .  84 

192.  Confirmation .  87 

193.  The  Lord’s  Suppper .  89 

1.  The  Controversy  respecting  the  Eucharist  previous  to  the  Rise  of  Scholasti¬ 
cism. — Paschasius  Radbert  and  Ratramn. — Berengar .  89 

194.  2.  The  Scholastic  Development  of  the  Doctrine.  Trccnsubstantiation.  The  Sac¬ 

rifice  of  the  Mass .  95 

195.  The  Withholding  of  the  Cup  from  the  Laity.  Concomitance- .  102 

196.  Dissenting  Opinions .  104 

197.  The  Greek  Church.. .  107 

198.  The  Sacrament  of  Penance .  109 

199.  The  Sacrament  of  Extreme  Unction .  112 

200.  The  Sacrament  of  Orders .  114 

201.  The  Sacrament  of  Matrimony . . .  116 

SEVENTH  DIVISION. 

ESCHATOLOGY. 

§  202.  Millennarianism.  The  approaching  End  of  the  World.  Antichrist .  119 

203.  The  Influence  of  the  Mediaeval  Tendencies  and  of  Christian  Art,  upon  Escha¬ 

tology .  121 

204.  The  Resurrection  of  the  Body .  122 

205.  The  General  Judgment .  124 

206.  Purgatory .  12S 

207.  The  Sleep  of  the  Soul .  129 

208.  The  Localities  of  the  Future  World.  (Heaven,  Hell,  and  Intermediate  State.)  130 

209.  The  State  of  the  Blessed  and  the  Damned .  132 

210.  Eternity  of  the  Punishment  of  Hell.  Restitution  of  all  Things .  138 

FOURTH  PERIOD. 

FROM  THE  REFORMATION  TO  THE  RISE  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  LEIB¬ 
NITZ  AND  WOLF  IN  GERMANY;  FROM  THE  YEAR  1517  TO  ABOUT  1720. 

THE  AGE  OF  POLEMICO-ECCLESIASTICAL  SYMBOLISM ;  THE 
CONFLICT  OF  CONFESSIONS  OF  FAITH. 

A.  GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINES  DURING  THE  FOURTH  PERIOD. 

§211.  Introduction . 139 

212.  The  Principles  of  Protestantism .  140 

213.  Relation  of  the  History  of  Doctrines  in  the  present  Period  to  that  of  former 

Periods  (Symbolism). .  142 


Contents.  vii 

1.  The  Lutheran  Church . 

PAGS 

§  214.  Luther  and  Melancthon . 143 

215.  The  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Lutheran  Church .  146 

216.  The  Systematic  Theology  of  the  Lutheran  Church .  150 

2 It.  Lutheran  Mysticism,  Theosophy  and  Asceticism .  154 

218.  Reforming  Tendencies.  John  Yalentin  Andrea,  Calixt,  Spener,  Thomasius.  157 

2.  The  Reformed  Church. 

§219.  Zwingle  and  Calvin .  159 

220.  The  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Reformed  Church .  162 

221.  a.  Symbolical  Writings  prior  to  the  Time  of  Calvin .  163 

222.  b.  Symbolical  Writings  under  the  Influence  of  Calvin .  164 

223.  The  Systematic  Theology  of  the  Reformed  Church .  ItO 

223.  a.  [The  G-erman  Reformed  Theology.] . 175 

224.  Mysticism  in  the  Reformed  Church .  177 

225.  Influence  of  the  Cartesian  Philosophy.  More  Liberal  Tendencies .  178 

225,  a.  [The  French  School  of  Saumur.] .  180 

225,  b.  [Theology  in  England  and  Scotland.] .  182 

3.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

§  226.  The  Council  of  Trent,  and  the  Catechismus  Romanus .  195 

227.  The  Theologians  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church .  197 

228.  Jansenism. .  201 

229.  The  Mysticism  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church .  203 

230.  Liberal  Tendencies  in  Criticism  and  Systematic  Theology.  Transition  to  the 

following  Period .  206 

4.  The  Greek  Church . 

§  231.  The  Greek  Church .  206 

5.  Minor  Religious  Parties  (Sects). 

§  232.  Minor  Religious  Parties  (Sects) .  208 

233.  a.  Anabaptists  (Mennonites) .  208 

234.  b.  Unitarians  (Socinians) .  210 

235.  c.  Arminians  (Remonstrants) .  214 

236.  d.  Quakers. .  21b 

237.  Attempts  at  Union  (Syncretism) .  218 

238.  Influence  of  Philosophy.  Deism.  Apologetics .  220 

238,  a.  [The  English  Deism.] .  223 

239.  Division  of  the  Material .  228 


Vlll 


Contents. 


B.  THE  SPECIAL  HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINES  DURING  THE  FOURTH  PERIOD. 

FIRST  CLASS. 

THE  CHARACTERISTIC  DOCTRINES  OF  ROMANISM  AND  PROTESTANTISM. 

(INCLUDING  THE  OPPOSITION  BETWEEN  LUTHERANS  AND  CALVINISTS, 

AND  THE  OPINIONS  OF  THE  MINOR  RELIGIOUS  PARTIES 

AND  SECTS.) 

FIRST  DIVISION. 

THE  DOCTRINES  CONCERNING  THE  SOURCES  OF  KNOWLEDGE. 


(formal  principle.) 

PAGE 


240.  Romanism  and  Protestantism .  230 

Divergent  Views  of  various  Sects .  236 

241.  a.  The  Mystical  Principle 

242.  b.  The  Rationalistic  Principle  (Socinians) .  239 

243.  The  further  Development  of  the  Doctrine  concerning  the  Holy  Scriptures,  In¬ 

spiration,  and  Interpretation .  240 

244.  Relation  of  Scripture  to  Tradition .  248 


SECOND  DIVISION. 

ANTHROPOLOGY,  JUSTIFICATION,  AND  THE  ECONOMY  OF  REDEMPTION 


a.  ANTHROPOLOGY. 


§  245.  Man  Prior  to  the  Fall.  . .  251 

246.  The  Fall  and  its  Consequences  (Original  Sin) .  255 

241.  Antagonisms  within  the  Confessions  themselves .  261 

248.  Further  Development  of  the  Doctrine  concerning  Man,  in  Theory  as  well  as 

in  Practice . . .  263 


b.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION. 


§  249.  Freedom  and  Grace.  Predestination .  268 

250.  Controversies  respecting  Predestination  within  the  Denominations  themselves.  277 

251.  Justification  and  Sanctification.  Faith  and  Works .  281 

252.  Fluctuations  within  the  Denominations .  286 

253.  The  Economy  of  Redemption .  283 


Contents. 


ix 


THIRD  DIVISION. 

THE  DOCTRINES  CONCERNING  THE  CHURCH  AND  ITS  MEANS  OF  GRACE,  CON¬ 
CERNING  SAINTS,  IMAGES,  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  THE  MASS,  AND  PURGATORY. 

(THE  PRACTICAL  CONSEQUENCES.) 

PAGE 

§  254.  Introduction . . .  289 

255.  The  Church  and  Ecclesiastical  Power .  290 

256.  Further  Development  of  the  Doctrine  concerning  the  Church .  299 

257.  Adoration  of  Saints  and  Images .  301 

258.  The  Sacraments . . .  303 

259.  The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  The  Lord’s  Supper .  308 

260.  Internal  Fluctuations  and  further  Doctrinal  Development . , . 323 

261.  The  Doctrine  concerning  Purgatory. . .  326 

SECOND  CLASS. 

DOCTRINES  IN  WHICH  PROTESTANTS  AND  ROMAN  CATHOLICS  MORE  OR 
LESS  AGREED  (IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  MINOR  SECTS). 

FIRST  DIVISION. 

THEOLOGY  PROPER. 

§  262.  Trinitarians  and  Antitrinitarians . .  328 

263.  The  Systematic  Development  of  the  Doctrine  concerning  God,  together  with 

its  Mystical  and  Speculative  Aspects . 333 

264.  Creation  and  Preservation  of  the  World.  Providence  and  Government  of  the 

World .  337 

265.  Angels  and  Demons  (Devil) .  341 

SECOND  DIVISION. 

CHRISTOLOGY  AND  SOTERIOLOGY  (INCLUDING  THE  DOCTRINE  CONCERNING 

BAPTISM  AND  ESCHATOLOGY). 

§  266.  The  Person  of  Christ . .  344 

267.  Further  Doctrinal  Development  and  Internal  Controversies .  351 

268.  The  Doctrine  of  Atonement .  354 

269.  Differences  of  Opinion  within  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches . 362 

270.  Baptism .  364 

271.  Eschatology . . .  370 


X 


Contents. 


FIFTH  PERIOD. 

FROM  THE  YEAR  1720  TO  THE  PRESENT  DAY. 

THE  AGE  OF  CRITICISM,  OR  SPECULATION,  AND  OF  THE  ANTAG¬ 
ONISM  BETWEEN  FAITH  AND  KNOWLEDGE,  PHILOSOPHY 
AND  CHRISTIANITY,  REASON  AND  REVELATION; 

AND  ATTEMPTS  TO  RECONCILE  THESE 
ANTAGONISMS. 

A.  GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINES  DURING  THE  FIFTH  PERIOD. 


PAGE 

272.  Introduction .  373 

273.  Influence  of  Philosophy  upon  Theology .  375 

274.  The  Philosophy  of  Wolf .  376 

275.  Influence  of  Deism  and  Naturalism.  Rationalism . 378 

276.  Works  of  Apologetical  Writers.  Changes  in  the  Mode  of  Treating  Theology. 

Modern  Compendiums  of  Systematic  Theology .  382 

277.  Reaction.  Edict  of  Religion.  Orthodox  Pietism .  388 

278.  Zinzendorf  and  the  United  Brethren.  Wesley  and  the  Methodists.  Sweden¬ 

borg . 390 

279.  The  Philosophy  of  Kant.  Rationalism  and  Supernaturalism .  394 

280.  Modern  Speculative  Philosophy.  Fichte.  Schelling .  398 

281.  Herder  and  Jacobi.  De  Wette  and  Schleiermacher .  401 

282.  Attempts  at  Restoration.  Practical  Piety  and  Modern  Theology .  404 

283.  The  Philosophy  of  Hegel  and  the  Young  Hegelians .  407 

284.  Latest  Rationalistic  Reaction. . . .  410 

285.  The  Protestant  Church  and  Doctrine  out  of  Germany .  412 

285,  a.  [Theology  in  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.] . 416 

285,  b.  [English  Theology  and  Philosophy  in  the  Present  Century.] . 423 

285,  c.  [Theology  and  Philosophy  in  Scotland.] .  430 

285,  d.  [Theology  in  the  United  States  of  America.  New  England.  Edwards 

aud  his  School.] . 435 

285.  e.  [Theology  and  Philosophy  in  the  United  States. — Continued.] .  442 

286.  Conflicts  of  the  Confessions .  452 

287.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church.  German  Catholicism .  454 

288.  The  Russian-Greek  Chnrch .  459 


B.  SPECIAL  HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINES  DURING  THE  FIFTH  PERIOD. 

FIRST  DIVISION. 

PROLEGOMENA.  RELIGION.  REVELATION.  BIBLE  AND  TRADITION. 

(miracle  and  prophecy.) 


§  289.  Religion .  461 

290.  Truth  and  Divine  Origin  of  Christianity.  Perfectibility.  Reason  and  Reve¬ 

lation .  463 

291.  The  Word  of  God.  Scripture  and  Tradition.  Scripture  and  Spirit .  465 

292.  Inspiration  and  Interpretation  of  Scripture.  Miracles  and  Prophecy . 467 


Contents. 


xi 


SECOND  DIVISION. 

THEOLOGY  PROPER.  CREATION  AND  PROVIDENCE.  THE  DOCTRINE  CON¬ 
CERNING  ANGELS  AND  DEVILS. 

PAGE 

§  293.  Deism.  Theism.  Pantheism . 474 

294.  The  Existence  and  Attributes  of  God . 476 

295.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity .  478 

296.  Creation  and  Preservation  of  the  World.  Providence,  Theodicy . 481 

297.  The  Doctrine  Concerning  Angels  and  Demons . 482 

THIRD  DIVISION. 

ANTHROPOLOGY.  CHRISTOLOGY.  SOTERIOLOGY  AND  THE  ECONOMY  OF 

REDEMPTION. 

§  298.  The  Doctrines  concerning  Man,  Sin,  and  Liberty . 485 

299.  Christology . 489 

300.  The  Doctrine  of  Atonement . 496 

301.  The  Economy  of  Redemption.  Justification  and  Sanctification  (Eaith  and 

Good  Works).  Grace  and  Liberty.  Predestination .  503 

i 

FOURTH  DIVISION. 

THE  CHURCH.  SACRAMENTS.  ESCHATOLOGY. 

§  302.  The  Doctrine  concerning  the  Church .  511 

303.  The  Means  of  Grace.  The  Sacraments .  513 

304.  Eschatology .  517 

Index .  523 


*  VT  * 


T  "T  7^  T1  rrrn 

jl  Ai  O  Xx  x  O' 


IT 


T  J  tS  A  T  A  A  T  A  '?>  T . 

c^A  /A  y  XX  V./  v  .  ■'  '-  W  /ci.  XX  / 


f 

v? 

w 

'» 

t 


"TV*  X 


/ 


*  ■  £^g»r 


•’•tv* 


■  ■  ■ 


THIRD  PERIOD. 


THE  AGE  OF  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 

(CONTINUED). 


THIRD  DIVISION. 


ANTHROPOLOGY. 

§  173. 

GENERAL  DEFINITIONS. 

% 

The  Greek  church  adhered  to  the  opinions  of  the  earlier  fathers, 
which  were  collected  and  more  fully  developed  by  John  Damascenus / 
He,  as  well  as  most  of  the  Western  theologians,  adopted  the  cur¬ 
rent  twofold  division  into  body  and  soul.  While  John  Scotus  Erigena 
regarded  the  bodily  constitution  of  man,  and  even  his  condition  as 
a  creature,  as  a  result  of  sin,2  John  of  Damascus  and  the  disciples 
of  the  school  of  St.  Victor,  recognized  in  the  union  of  the  soul  with 
the  body  a  higher  purpose  of  God,  and  a  moral  lesson  for  man.3 
The  theory  designated  as  Creatianism,  which  had  contested  the  vic¬ 
tory  with  Traducianism  during  the  preceding  period,  was  now  more 
precisely  defined.4  The  psychological  views  of  the  mystics  stood 
in  a  close  relation  with  their  entire  system,  founded  upon  subjective 
experience  ;  and  at  all  events,  it  had  a  greater  tendency  to  lead  into 
the  depths  of  religious  contemplation,  than  the  subtleties  of  the 
scholastics,  which  had  rather  to  do  with  what  is  external.6 

1  On  the  one  hand,  cosmology  was  introduced  into  the  doctrine  of  crea¬ 
tion  ;  on  the  other,  both  psychology  and  physiology  were  introduced  into 
anthropology.  With  respect  to  the  last  two,  theologians  founded  their  no¬ 
tions  especially  upon  the  physics  of  Aristotle.  Thus  John  Damascenus,  De 
Fide  Orthod.  ii.  12-28,  treated  of  the  four  temperaments  (humoribus,  XvlL0~h 0 
of  man,  as  corresponding  to  the  four  elements  of  the  world ;  of  the  various 
faculties  of  the  soul,  etc.  lie  everywhere  retained  the  principal  definitions 


14 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


of  earlier  theologians  concerning  human  liberty ,  etc.  (Compare  especially 
c.  25-28.) 

3  De  Divis.  Naturae,  iv.  10  :  Non  enim  homo,  si  non  peccaret,  inter  partes 
mundi  administraretur,  sed  universitatem  omnino  sibi  subditam  administraret, 
nec  corporeis  his  sensibus  mortalis  corporis  ad  ilium  regendum  ut^retur, 
verum  sine  ullo  sensibili  motu  vel  locali  vel  temporali,  sola  rationabili  con- 
tuiter  naturalium  et  interiorum  ejus  causarum  facillimo  rectae  voluntatis  usu 
secundum  leges  divinas  aeternaliter  ac  sine  errore  gubernaret.  [For  a  full 
exposition  of  the  views  of  Erigena  on  body  and  soul,  see  Christlieb’s  work, 
Leben  u.  Lehre  der  Job.  Scot.  Erigena,  1860,  p.  248,  sq.  He  rests  on  the 
Aristotelian  view,  that  formless  matter  is  incorporeal,  and  can  only  be  known 
by  reason.  The  body  in  relation  to  man  is  an  accident.  Omnis  ovcia  in- 
corruptibilis  est.  Omne  incorruptibile  corpus  materiale  non  est.  Omnis 
igitur  ovoia  corpus  materiale  non  est  (De  Div.  Nat.  i.  49).  The  body,  he 
says,  is  made  up  of  points,  lines,  surfaces,  and  solidity,  all  of  which  are  in¬ 
corporeal,  etc.] 

3  John  Damascenus ,  1.  c.  c.  12.  According  to  Hugo  of  St.  Victor , 
(quoted  by  Liebner ,  p.  395),  the  union  of  the  soul  with  the  body  is  a  type 
of  the  mystical  union  of  God  with  man.  Richard  of  St.  Victor  adopted 
the  same  opinion  (see  Engelhardt ,  p.  181),  which  was  also  held  by  Peter 
Lombard  (Sent.  Lib.  i.  Dist.  3.  9.,  and  Lib.  ii.  Dist.  17).  Thomas  Aquinas 
gave  a  more  fully  developed  system  of  psychology.  (Summa  P.  i.  9.  75-90. 
Cramer  vii.  p.  473.)  [Comp.  Plassmann ,  Psychologie  d.  Schule  des  Aquin., 
1860. 

4  Anselm  defended  creatianism  negatively ,  by  opposing  traducianism,  De 

Conceptu  Yirginali,  c.  7  :  Quod  autem  mox  ab  ipsa  conceptione  rationalem 
animam  habeat  (homo),  nullus  humanus  suscipit  sensus.  Hugo  St.  Victor 
pronounced  positively  in  favor  of  creatianism  ;  de  Sacram.  Lib.  i.  P.  vii.  c. 
30  :  tides  catholica  magis  credendum  elegit  animas  quotidie  corporibus  vivi- 
ficandis  sociandas  de  nihilo  fieri,  quam  secundum  corporis  naturam  et  carnis 
humanse  proprietatem  de  traduce  propagari.  Comp.  Liebner ,  p.  416.  [Also 
in  De  Anima,  ascribed  to  Hugo  (see  Note  5)  :  Dicimus  autem  rationales 
animas  pro  essentia  fieri  quotidie  de  nihilo  novas,  sed  pro  consimili  natura 
ex  institutione  divina  non  utique  novas.  Quales  enim  in  exordio  Deus  die 
sexto  masculo  et  feminse  dedit,  tales  quotidie  inspirat  singulis,  nova  de  nihilo 
creatione,  non  nova  institutione.]  Robert  Pulleyn  brought  forward  some 
very  singular  and  abstruse  arguments  against  traducianism,  see  Cramer ,  vi. 
p.  474.  Peter  Lombard  also  espoused  creatianism  in  decided  terms,  Sent. 
Lib.  ii.  Dist.  17.  C. :  De  aliis  (i.  e .,  the  souls  posterior  to  Adam  and  Eve), 
certissime  sentiendum  est,  quod  in  corpore  creentur.  Creando  enim  infundit 
eas  Deus,  et  iufundendo  creat. — Thomas  Aquinas ,  Summa  P.  i.  Qu.  118, 
Art.  l,made  a  distinction  between  the  anima  sensitiva  and  anima  intellectiva 
(which  was  similar  to  the  distinction  formerly  made  between  and 

7 Tvevya,  or  vovq.)  The  former  is  propagated  in  a  physical  manner,  inasmuch 
as  it  is  allied  to  the  physical ;  the  latter  is  created  by  God.  [Comp.  Aquinas, 
Contra  Gentes,  ii.  89  :  Anima  igitur  vegetabilis,  quae  primo  inest,  cum 
embryo  vivit  vita  plantae,  corrumpitur,  et  succedit  anima  perfectior,  qua?  est 
nutritiva  et  sensitiva  simul ;  et  tunc  embryo  vivit  vita  animalis ;  hac  autem 


§  173.  General  Definitions  in  Psychology. 


15 


corrupta,  succedit  anima  rationalis  ab  extrinseco  immissa,  licet  prascedentes 
fuerint  virtute  seminis.  Aquinas’s  chief  argument  (in  Summa  Theol.  Pt.  I. 
qu.  118,  Art.  2,  is,  that  an  immaterial  substance  could  only  be  produced  by 
creation.]  More  precise  definitions  were  given  by  Odo  of  Cambray  (a.  d 
1113),  De  Peccato  Original]',  Lib.  ii.  (in  Maxima  Biblioth.  PP.  Ludg.  T.  xxi. 
p.  230-34).  Comp.  SchrocJch,  xxviii.  p.  436.  He  designated  creatianism  as 
the  orthodox  opinion. — Friar  Berthold  illustrated  this  theory  in  a  popular 
way  in  his  sermons,  quoted  by  Kling ,  p.  209  ( Grimm ,  p.  206)  :  “As  life  is 
given  to  the  child  in  his  mother’s  womb,  so  the  angel  pours  the  soul  into 
him,  and  God  Almighty  pours  the  soul  with  the  angel  into  him.”  The  pre¬ 
existence  of  the  soul  still  had  a  defender  in  Fredegis  of  Tours ,  in  the  ninth 
century;  see  Ritter ,  Gesch.  d.  Phil.  vii.  190,  sq. 

5  Concerning  the  mystical  psychological  views  of  the  disciples  of  the 
school  of  St.  Victor,  see  Liebner ,  p.  334,  ss.  The  three  fundamental  powers 
by  which  the  soul  knows,  are  imaginatio,  ratio  (rather  understanding  than 
reason),  and  intelligentia.  Cogitatio  corresponds  to  the  first,  meditatio  to  the 
second,  and  contemplatio  to  the  third.  \Hugo  in  his  Comm,  in  Joelem 
(Schopff’s  Aurora,  iv.  38)  :  Tria  quoque  sunt  genera  visionum;  prima  est 
materialis,  secunda  spiritualis,  tertia  intellectualis.  Prima  concipit  elemen- 
tata,  secunda  imaginata,  tertia  ab  omni  circumscriptione  est  aliena,  utcunque 
Deum  concipiens,  virtutes  quoque  et  vitia.]  The  treatise  De  Anima,  Lib.  iv., 
reprinted  in  Opp.  TIugonisEd.  Rothomag.  T.  ii.  p.  132,  ss.,  which  was  used  as 
a  compendium  by  the  earlier  scholastics  no  less  than  by  the  mystics,  is  some¬ 
times  attributed  to  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  but  has  probably  Alcherus ,  abbot  of 
Stella  (a.  d.  1147),  for  its  author.  See  Liebner ,  p.  493,  ss.,  and  Fngelhardt , 
Dogmengeschichte  ii.  p.  119. — Bonaventura  and  Gerson  adopted  the  same 
psychological  notions.  According  to  the  former,  spiritual  vision  is  the  prin¬ 
cipal  idea.  We  see  all  things  in  God  through  the  medium  of  a  supernatural 
light  (comp,  above,  vol.  1,  §  161.)  He,  too,  distinguished  between  sensation, 
imagination,  reason  (understanding),  intellectus,  the  highest  faculty  of  the 
mind,  and  the  synteresis ,  or  conscience. —  Gerson  De  Theol.  Myst.  consid. 
x.— xxv.)  divided  the  essence  of  the  soul  into  two  fundamental  powers  (vis 
cognitiva  et  vis  affectiva.)  Starting  from  its  higher  functions,  he  then  divided 
the  former  as  follows  :  intelligentia  simplex  (the  pure  faculty  of  intellectual 
vision),  ratio  (understanding),  and  sensualitas  (the  faculty  of  perception  by 
the  senses.)  They  are  related  to  each  other,  as  contemplatio,  meditatio,  and 
cogitatio.  The  highest  degree  of  the  vis  affectiva  is  the  Synteresis*  the 
next  is  the  appetitus  rationalis,  and  the  lowest  is  the  appetitus  animalis ;  see 
Hundeshagen ,  p.  37,  ss.,  Ch.  Schmidt,  p.  76,  ss.  [ Schwab's  John  Gerson, 
1859.] 

*  Synteresis  est  vis  animse  appetitiva,  suscipiens  immediate  a  Deo  naturalem  quandam 
jnclinationem  ad  bonum,  per  quam  trahitur  insequi  motionem  boni  ex  apprehensione 
simplicis  intelligentise  prsesentati,  quoted  by  Liebner ,  p.  340.  Comp.  Bonavent.  Compend. 
JI.  51. 


16 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


§  174. 

THE  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE  SOUL. 

The  assertion  of  some  of  the  earlier  Greek  theologians,  that  the 
'(jjvx'ij,  as  such,  is  not  immortal,  but  obtains  immortality  only  from 
its  connection  with  the  rrvevya,  was  repeated  in  the  Greek  church  by 
Nicolas  of  Methone .*  In  the  West,  the  schoolmen  generally  taught 
the  immortality  of  the  soul  as  a  theological  truth ;  but  the  chief 
leaders  of  the  scholastic  sects,  Thomas  Aquinas  and  Duns  Scotus , 
were  at  issue  on  the  question,  whether  reason  furnishes  satisfactory 
proofs  of  that  doctrine.3  Raimund  of  Sabunde  rested  belief  in  God, 
as  well  as  belief  in  immortality,  upon  the  idea  of  freedom,  and  the 
necessity  of  moral  sanctions.3  But  the  advocates  of  Platonism,  in 
particular,  towards  the  close  of  the  present  period,  were  at  much 
pains  to  prove  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  in  opposition  to  the 
Aristotelians.4  At  last,  the  Council  of  the  Lateran,  held  A.  d.  1513, 
under  Pope  Leo  X.,  pronounced  the  natural  immortality  of  the  soul 
to  be  an  article  of  faith,  and  discarded  the  distinction  between  theo¬ 
logical  and  philosophical  truths  as  untenable.5 

1  John  Damascenus  taught  (De  Fide  Orthod.  ii.  12,  p.  1*7 9),  that  the  soul 
is  aOavarog.  Nicolas  of  Methone,  on  the  contrary,  expressed  himself  as 
follows  (Refut.  p.  207  and  208,  quoted  by  ITllmann,  p.  89,  90)  :  “  It  is  not 
every  soul  that  neither  perishes  nor  dies,  but  only  the  rational,  truly  spiritual 
and  divine  soul,  which  is  made  perfect  through  virtue,  by  participating  in 
the  grace  of  God.  For  the  souls  of  irrational  beings,  and  still  more,  of 
plants,  may  perish  with  the  things  which  they  inhabit,  because  they  can  not 
be  separated  from  bodies  which  are  made  up  of  parts,  and  may  be  dissolved 
into  their  elements.”  Compare  with  this  passage  what  he  said,  Refut.  p. 
120  :  “  If  any  created  being  is  eternal,  it  is  not  so  by  and  for  itself,  nor 
through  itself,  but  by  the  goodness  of  God  ;  for  all  that  is  made  and  created 
has  a  beginning,  and  retains  its  existence  only  through  the  goodness  of  the 
Creator.” 

2  The  scholastics,  by  closely  adhering  to  Aristotle ,  were  naturally  led  to 
the  inquiry,  in  what  sense  their  master  himself  had  taught  the  immortality 
of  the  soul,  in  the  definition  he  gave  of  its  essence,  viz.,  that  it  is  kvr'kk'XEia, 
7]  rrpd)r7]  ouyarog  (pvoucov  dpyavmov  (De  Anim.  ii.  1) ;  comp.  Mtinscher, 
edit,  by  Yon  Colin  ii.  p.  90.  But  Christianity  set  forth  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  in  so  convincing  a  manner,  that  it  became  necessary,  either  to  re¬ 
turn  to  the  old  distinction  made  between  natural  immortality,  and  that 
immortality  which  is  communicated  by  grace,  which  was,  however,  possible 
only  in  connection  with  the  threefold  division  (viz.,  body,  soul  and  spirit), 
or  to  admit  a  collision  between  theological  and  philosophical  truths.  The 
distinction  which  Thomas  Aquinas  drew  between  anima  sensitiva  and  anima 
intellectiva  (§  1 7 3,  note  3),  enabled  him  to  ascribe  immortality  to  the  latter 


§  174.  The  Immortality  of  the  Soul. 


17 


alone.  Comp.  Summa  P.  1.  Qu.  7 6,  Art.  6.,  where  he  in  fact  contented  him¬ 
self  with  saying :  Animam  humanam,  quam  dicimus  intellectivum  principium , 
esse  incorruptibilem.  But  he  also  held  that  the  intellectus  alone  is  above 
space  and  time  (hie  et  nunc),  while  the  sensus  moves  in  these  categories  and 
is  restricted  in  its  knowledge  to  the  images  (ideas,  phantasms)  borrowed  from 
this  sphere  (intelligere  cum  phantasmate).  As  Anselm  of  Canterbury  had 
inferred  the  existence  of  God  himself  from  the  idea  of  God,  so  Thomas 
Aquinas  proved  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  in  a  similar  manner,  by  an 
ontological  argument :  Intellectus  apprehendit  esse  absolute  et  secundum 
omne  tempus.  Unde  omne  habens  intellectum  naturaliter  desiderat  esse 
semper.  Naturale-  autem  desiderium  non  potest  esse  inane.  Omnis  igitur 
intellectualis  substantia  est  incorruptibilis.  Com.  Engelhardt ,  Dogmen- 
geschichte  ii.  p.  123. — On  the  other  hand,  Scotus,  whose  views  were  more 
nearly  allied  to  those  of  the  nominalists,  maintained  :  Non  posse  demon- 
strari,  quod  anima  sit  immortalis  (Comm,  in  M.  Sentent.  L.  II.  Dist.  17.  Qu. 
1.  Comp.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  43.  Qu.  2).  JBonaventura ,  on  the  contrary,  asserted, 
De  Nat.  D.  ii.  55  :  Animam  esse  immortalem,  auctoritate  ostenditur  et  ra- 
tione.  Concerning  the  further  attempts  of  Moneta  of  Cremona  (who  lived 
between  the  years  1220  and  1250),  William  of  Auvergne  (bishop  of  Paris 
from  1228  to  1249),  and  Raimund  Martini  (in  his  Pugio  Fidei  adv.  Maur. 
P.  i.  c.  4),  to  prove  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  comp.  Mtinscher,  edit,  by 
Yon  Colin,  p.  91,  92. 

*  Theol.  Naturalis  Tit.  92  :  Quoniam  ex  operibus  hominis,  in  quantum 
homo  est,  nascitur  meritum  vel  culpa,  quibus  debetur  punitio  vel  prasmium, 
et  cum  homo,  quamdiu  vivat,  acquirit  meritum  vel  culpam,  et  de  illis  non 
recipit  retributiones  nec  punitiones  dum  vivit,  et  ordo  universi  non  patitur, 
quod  aliquid  quantumeunque  modicum  remaneat  irremuneratum  neque  im- 
punitum  :  ideo  necesse  est,  quod  remaneat  liberum  arbitrium,  quo  fiat  radix 
meritorum  et  culparum,  ut  recipiat  debitum  et  rectam  retributionem  sive 
punitionem  :  quod  fieri  non  posset,  nisi  remaneret  liberum  arbitrium.  Unde 
cum  culpa  vel  meritum  remanet  post  mortem,  necesse  est  etiam  quod  ma- 
neat  liberum  arbitrium,  in  quo  est  culpa  vel  meritum,  et  cui  debetur  punitio 
sive  retributio,  et  in  quo  est  capacitas  prsemii  yel  punitionis. 

4  Marsilius  Ficinus,  De  Immortalitate  Animae  Libri  xviii.  (Opp.  Par.  641. 
fol.)  an  extract  from  which  is  given  by  Buhle  (Geschichte  der  neuern  Philo¬ 
sophic,  vol.  ii.  p.  171-341.)  “  This  workf  says  Gieseler ,  Dogmengesch. 

498,  “  is  the  one  among  all  that  are  extant ,  containing  the  greatest  variety  of 
proofs  of  the  spirituality  and  immortality  of  the  soul.” 

6  Acta  Concil.  Beg.  T.  xxxiv.  (Par.  1644.  fol.)  p.  333,  quoted  by  Mtin- 
scher,  ed.  by  Yon  Colin,  p.  92,  93. 


§  175. 

MAN  IN  HIS  STATE  OF  INNOCENCE  PRIOR  TO  THE  FALL. 

It  was  one  of  the  characteristic  features  of  scholasticism,  to  waste 
the  greatest  amount  of  acuteness  upon  those  parts  of  doctrinal 

2 


18 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


theology,  which  do  not  belong  to  the  province  either  of  psycholog¬ 
ical  experience,  or  of  history,  properly  so  called,  and  concerning 
which  the  Sacred  Scriptures  give  us  rather  intimations  than  dis¬ 
tinct  information.  Among  such  subjects  were  the  doctrine  of 
the  angels,  and  that  of  the  state  of  the  first  man  in  paradise. 
Though  both  scholastics  and  mystics  frequently  applied  allego¬ 
rical  interpretation  to  the  biblical  narrative  of  the  primeval  state,1 
the  former  used  it  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  represent  the  first  man 
wfith  historical  accuracy,  and  to  describe  him  as  he  came  forth  from 
the  hands  of  his  Maker.2  In  the  opinion  of  some  theologians,  the 
justitia  originalis  was  added  to  the  pura  naturalia,  as  a  donum 
superadditum ;  while  others,  e.  g.  Thomas  Aquinas,  distinguished 
between  the  purely  human,  and  the  divine  which  is  added,  only  in 
the  abstract,  but  made  them  coincide  in  the  concrete.  According 
to  the  latter  notion,  man  was  created  in  the  full  possession  of  the 
divine  righteousness,  and  not  deprived  of  it  till  after  the  fall.3  Most 
theologians  still  made  a  distinction  between  the  image  of  God,  and 
resemblance  to  God,4  and  adventured  many  conjectures  respect¬ 
ing  the  former,  as  well  as  man’s  state  of  innocence  in  general.5 — 
The  definitions  concerning  the  liberty  of  man  were  beset  with  the 
greatest  difficulties.  The  fall  of  man  would  not  have  been  possible, 
without  the  liberty  of  choice.  But,  according  to  Augustine,  some¬ 
thing  more  was  required  to  constitute  perfect  righteousness,  than 
the  liberty  of  choice  alluded  to,  inasmuch  as  man  continued  in  the 
possession  of  it  after  his  fall — viz.  as  a  liberty  to  do  evil.  But  if 
our  first  parents,  on  account  of  their  having  true  freedom,  were 
above  the  temptations  to  sin,  how  could  they  be  seduced  and  fall  P 
Anselm  here  avails  himself  of  the  distinction  between  will  in  gen¬ 
eral,  and  a  confirmed  or  steadfast  will  (velle  et  pervelle).8  Accord¬ 
ing  to  Hugo  of  St.  Victor ,  the  liberty  in  question  consisted  indeed 
in  the  possibility  of  sinning  or  not  sinning,  but  the  dis|iosition  to 
good  was  stronger  than  the  propensity  to  evil.  Others  adopted 
similar  views.7 

1  John  Damascenus  (De  Fide  Orthodoxa  ii.  c.  10.  p.  175.)  connected  the 
allegorical  interpretation  with  the  historical.  As  man  himself  is  composed 
of  body  and  soul,  so  his  first  dwelling-place  was  alodgroq  as  well  as  vogrog. 
According  to  him,  sensual  delight  in  the  garden,  and  spiritual  communion 
with  God,  are  correlative  ideas. — Peter  Lombard  theoretically  adopted  the 
literal  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  narrative,  Sent.  ii.  Dist.  17.  E.,  though 
'  he  also  considered  it  a  type  of  the  church  ;  but  many  of  his  practical  ex¬ 
positions  were  allegorical ;  e.  g.  Dist.  24.  H.,  quoted  by  Miinscher,  ed.  by 
Von  Colin,  p.  94.  According  to  him,  the  serpent  represents  that  sensuality 
which  still  suggests  sinful  thoughts  to  man  ;  the  woman  is  the  inferior  part 
of  reason,  which  is  first  seduced,  and  afterwards  leads  man  (the  higher 
reason)  into  temptation.  Thomas  Aquinas  also  taught,  P.  i.  Qu.  102.  Art.  1. : 


§  175.  Man  in  his  State  of  Innocence. 


19 


Ea  enim,  quae  de  Paradiso  in  Scriptura  dicuntur,  per  n^odum  narrationis  his- 
toricae  proponuntur  (in  accordance  with  his  hermeneutical  principle,  see  vol. 
1.  §  164,  note  4).  On  the  other  hand,  Scotus  Erigena  boldly  raised  doubts 
as  to  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  narrative  (De  Divis.  Natura  iv.  15,  p. 
196.),  and  regarded  it  as  an  ideal  description  of  the  happiness  which  would 
have  been  the  lot  of  mankind,  if  our  first  parents  had  resisted  temptation : 
Fuisse  Adam  temporaliter  in  Paradiso,  priusquam  de  costa  ejus  mulier  fabri- 

caretur,  dicat  quis  potest . Nee  unquam  steterat,  nam  si  saltern  vel 

parvo  spatio  stetisset,  necessario  ad  aliquam  perfectionem  perveniret . 

p.  197  :  Non  enim  credibile  est,  eundem  hominem  et  in  contemplatione 
seternse  pacis  stetisse  et  suadente  femina,  serpentis  veneno  corrupta,  corruisse. 
See  Baur,  Versohnungslehre,  p.  127 ;  Lehre  d.  Dreieinigkeit,  ii.  306,  and 
the  remarkable  interpretation  of  Luke,  x.  30,  there  cited.  [Non  ait;  homo 
quidam  erat  in  Jerusalem  et  incidit  in  latrones.  Nam  si  in  Jerusalem,  hoc 
est  in  paradiso,  humana  natura  permaneret,  profecto  in  latrones,  diabolum 
scilicet  sateliitesque  ejus,  non  incurreret.  Prius  ergo  descendebat  de  para¬ 
diso,  suae  voluntatis  irrationabili  motu  impulsus,  et  in  Jericho  prsecipitabatur, 
hoc  est,  in  defectum  instabilitatemque  rerum  temporalium.  De  Divis.  Na¬ 
turae,  iv.  15.] 

2  This  led  to  a  multitude  of  absurd  questions  concerning  the  nature  and 
durability  of  their  bodies,  e.  g .  why  the  man  had  been  created  before  the 
woman  ?  and  why  the  latter  had  been  made  out  of  the  rib  of  the  former  ? 
whether,  and  in  what  manner,  the  propagation  of  the  race  would  have  taken 
place,  if  our  first  parents  had  continued  in  their  state  of  innocence  ?  whether 
their  children  would  have  inherited  their  original  righteousness?  whether 
more  males  or  more  females  would  have  been  born  ?  “  What  dreams  !  How 
could  men  so  sedate  and  grave  as  monks  were ,  or  ought  to  have  been ,  waste  so 
much  time  upon  the  examination ,  discussion ,  and  defence  of  such  questions? 
In  the  Summa  of  Alexander  Hales ,  this  subject  fills  five  pages  in  folio f 
Cramer,  vii.  p.  493. 

3  The  former  opinion  was  adopted  by  Scotus  Erigena ,  Sent.  Lib.  ii.  Dist. 
39.;  Bonaventura,  Sent.  Lib.  ii.  Dist.  29.  Art.  ii.  Qu.  2;  comp.  Brev.  iii. 
25.  Cent.  ii.  §  2  ;  Hugo  of  St.  Victor ,  de  Sacram.  Lib.  i.  p.  6  ;  Alexander 
Hales,  P.  ii.  Qu.  96  :  comp.  Cramer,  vii.  p.  494  ss.  Marheineke,  Symbolik 
iii.  p.  13  ss.  On  the  contrary,  the  position  of  Thomas  Aquinas  (P.  1.  Qu. 
95.  Art.  9.),  that  man,  prior  to  the  fall,  had  never  been  in  the  condition  of 
the  pura  naturalia ,  but,  from  the  moment  of  his  creation,  had  possessed 
the  donum  superadditum,  which  belonged,  therefore,  properly  to  his  very 
nature,  was  more  nearly  allied  to  the  view  of  the  later  Protestant  theolo¬ 
gians.  See  Cramer  and  Marheineke  1.  c.,  and  on  the  other  side  Baur , 
Symbolik,  p.  34.  [On  Anselm's  doctrine  of  the  divine  image,  see  F.  B. 
Hasse ,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  hist.  Theologie,  1835.  On  this  whole  distinction 
of  pura  naturalia  and  dona  gratiae  see  Meander,  Hist.  Dogm.  576.] 

4  John  Da.mascenus  adhered  to  the  distinction  drawn  by  the  Greek  fathers, 
De  Fide  Orthod.  ii.  c.  12. — Hugo  of  St.  Victor ,  De  Sacram.  Lib.  i.  P.  c.  2. 

distinguished: . Imago  secundum  rationem,  similitudo  secundum  dilec- 

tionem ,  imago  secundum  cognitionem  veritatis,  similitudo  secundum  amorem 
virtutis ,  vel  imago  secundum  scientiam,  similitudo  secundum  substantiam . . . 


20 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


. .  .Imago  pertinet  ad  figuram ,  similitudo  ad  naturam,  etc.  Hugo,  however, 
restricted  the  image  of  God  to  the  soul,  and  decidedly  excluded  the  body ; 
for  the  passages,  see  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  p.  94,  95. — Peter  Lombard 
made  a  somewhat  different  distinction  (Sent.  Lib.  ii.  Dist.  16.  D.).  by  num¬ 
bering  the  dilectio  among  those  qualities  which  form  the  image  (memoria, 
intelligentia  et  dilectio) ;  he  conceived  the  resemblance  to  God  to  consist  in 
the  innocentia  et  justitia,  quae  in  mente  rationali  naturaliter  sunt.  He  also 
expressed  himself  more  briefly  thus  :  Imago  consideratur  in  cognitione  veri- 
tatis,  similitudo  in  amore  virtutis.  In  agreement  with  Hugo  of  St.  Victor, 
he  asserted,  Imago  pertinet  ad  formam,  similitudo  ad  naturam.*  [On  the 
Lombard's  views,  see  JSfeander ,  Hist.  Dogm.  509  :  he  distinguished  between 
the  dona  naturalia,  and  the  dona  gratise  ;  the  former  consist  in  the  purity 
and  vigor  of  all  the  powers  of  the  soul ;  left  to  himself,  however,  man  could 
do  only  evil.  The  aid  originally  given  to  man  he  thus  defines :  IUud  utique 
fiiit  libertas  arbitrii  ab  omni  labe  et  corruptela  immunis  atque  voluntatis  rec- 
titudo  et  omnium  naturalium  potentiarum  animse  sinceritas  atque  vivacitas. 
On  Aquinas  and  Alexander  of  Hales ,  see  Neander,  p.  574,  s</.] 

‘  First  of  all  was  man’s  dominion  over  the  earth,  and  over  the  animal 
kingdom  :  Thomas  Aquinas ,  P.  i.  Q.  96  ;  Cramer ,  vii.  p.  499,  500.  Ques¬ 
tions  wTere  raised,  such  as,  would  Adam  have  possessed  all  virtues,  and  in 
what  manner,  if  he  had  not  sinned  ?  In  what  respect  may  he  be  said  to 
have  possessed,  e.  g .,  modesty,  since  it  did  not  exist  until  sin  entered  into 
the  world?  He  did  not  possess  it  actually,  but  habitually  (i.  e.,  he  pos¬ 
sessed  the  disposition  to  it).  Did  man,  in  his  state  of  innocence,  possess 
passions  and  affections  ?  Yes,  viz.,  such  as  refer  to  that  which  is  good  ;  they 
were,  however,  moderate  and  harmonious.  Could  one  man  have  ruled  over 
others  ?  No  ;  nevertheless  a  superiority  of  wisdom  and  righteousness  might 
have  existed,  etc.  The  definitions  of  the  earlier  scholastics,  such  as  Anselm 
of  Canterbury  (Cur  Deus  Homo  II.  1.,  rationalis  natura  justa  est  facta,  ut 
summo  bono,  i.  e .,  Deo  fruendo  beata  esset),  as  well  as  of  the  mystics,  both 
before  and  after  the  times  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  were  simpler,  or  had,  at  least, 
regard  rather  to  what  is  religious  and  moral.  Thus,  Hugo  of  St.  Victor 
conceived  the  original  excellency  of  man,  in  point  of  knowledge  to  consist, 
1.  In  cognitione  perfecta  omnium  visibilium  ;  2.  In  cognitione  creatoris  per 
prsesentiam  contemplationis  seu  per  internam  inspirationem  ;  3.  In  cogni¬ 
tione  sui  ipsius  qua  conditionem  et  ordinem  et  debitum  suum  sive  supra  se, 
sive  in  se,  sive  sub  se  non  ignoraret;  see  Liebner ,  p.  410,  note  61.  In  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  will  of  man,  there  existed,  previous  to  his  fall,  two  blessings,  the 
one  an  earthly  one,  viz.,  the  world ;  and  the  other  a  heavenly  one,  viz.,  God. 
The  former  was  freely  given  to  man,  the  latter  he  was  to  obtain  by  his  own 

*  The  mystics,  and  those  preachers  of  the  middle  ages  who  held  similar  views,  endea¬ 
vored  to  point  out  the  image  of  God  in  the  outward  form  by  the  most  singular  illustra¬ 
tions.  God,  said  Berthold  (quoted  by  Kling ,  p.  305,  306.,  Wackernagel  Lesebuch,  p.  678.), 
has  written  under  the  eyes  of  man,  that  he  has  created  him,  “  with  flourishing  letters.” 
His  two  eyes  correspond  to  the  two  letters  o  in  the  word  homo.  The  curved  eye-brows 
above,  and  the  nose  between  the  eyes,  form  the  letter  m ;  h  is  a  mere  accessory  letter. 
The  ear  is  the  letter  d,  “beautifully  circled  and  flourished the  nostrils  form  a  Greek  e, 
“  beautifully  circled  and  flourished the  mouth  forms  an  i,  “  beautifully  circled  and  flour¬ 
ished  All  together  form  the  phrase  uhomo  Lei .” 


§  175.  Man  in  His  State  of  Innocence. 


21 


merits.  In  order  that  man  might  retain  the  earthly  blessing,  and  acquire 
the  heavenly  one,  the  prseceptum  naturse  was  given  him  for  the  one,  the 
prseceptuin  discipline  (i.  e .,  the  command  not  to  eat  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of 
the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil)  for  the  other.  He  possessed  the  former  by 
nature,  but  received  the  latter  from  without.  Accordingly,  man  could  guard 
against  negligence  (contra  negligentiam),  in  respect  to  the  external  com¬ 
mand,  by  using  caution,  and  by  his  own  reason;  but  God  protected  him 
against  violence  (contra  violentiam).  Compare  Gerson ,  He  Meditatione, 
Cons.  2,  p.  449,  ss.  (quoted  by  Hundeshagen ,  p.  42)  :  Fuit  ab  initio  bene 
conditm  rationalis  creaturce  talis  ordo  ordinisque  tranquillitas,  quod  ad  nutuin 
et  merum  imperium  sensualitas  rationi  inferiori  et  inferior  ratio  superiori 
serviebat.  Et  erat  ab  inferioribus  ad  superiora  pronus  et  facilis  ascensus, 
faciente  hoc  levitate  origin alis  justitire  subvehentis  sursum  corda. — In  the 
writings  of  John  Wessel  we  only  meet  with  occasional  and  disconnected 
statements  concerning  the  original  condition  of  man  ;  the  profoundest  and 
most  important  is  in  He  Orat.  xi.  3,  p.  184  (quoted  by  TJllmann ,  p.  239)  ; 
u  In  the  state  of  innocence  there  existed  a  necessity  for  breathing,  eating, 
and  sleeping;  and,  to  counteract  the  dissolution  which  threatened  man,  he 
■was  permitted  to  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  life ;”  i.  e .,  though  man  was 
subject  to  certain  natural  restrictions,  he  was,  nevertheless,  free  from  press¬ 
ing  wants,  from  the  necessity  of  suffering,  of  disease,  and  death ;  for  the 
partaking  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  life  secured  his  immortality. 

6  The  statements  of  Anselm  have  more  direct  reference  to  the  nature  of 
the  devil,  but  are  also  applicable  to  the  will  of  created  beings  in  general 
( Hasse ,  ii.  441),  He  Casu  Hiaboli,  c.  2-6.  Hasse ,  ii.  399,  sq. 

7  Ilago  of  St.  Victor  assumed  the  existence  of  three  or  four  kinds  of 
liberty  :  1.  Man,  in  his  original  state ,  possessed  the  power  to  sin,  and  the 
power  not  to  sin  (posse  peccare  et  posse  non  peccare)  ;  in  this  is  included 
assistance  to  do  good  (adjutorium  in  bono),  but  an  infirmity  to  do  evil  (in- 
firmitas  in  malo),  though  in  such  a  manner  as  neither  to  compel  him  to  do 
good,  nor  forcibly  to  restrain  him  from  evil.  2.  In  the  middle  state  of  man* 
after  the  fall  the  case  is  as  follows  : — a ,  Prior  to  his  restoration  (ante  repara- 
tionem),  man  lacks  the  divine  grace  (assistance)  to  do  good,  and  the  infirmity 
to  evil  degenerates  into  a  propensity  to  evil,  i.  e.,  posse  peccare  et  non  posse 
non  peccare.  (Though  the  idea  of  liberty  is  not  thereby  entirely  set  aside, 
it  is  at  least  greatly  weakened.)  After  his  restoration  (redemption),  but 
before  he  is  established  in  goodness,  man  possesses  grace  to  do  good,  and  in¬ 
firmity  to  do  evil,  i.  e.,  posse  peccare  et  posse  non  peccare  (the  former  because 
of  his  liberty  and  infirmity,  the  latter  because  of  his  liberty  and  by  means 
of  assisting  grace.)  3.  In  the  highest  state  of  perfection ,  there  is  both  the 
possibility  not  to  sin,  and  the  impossibility  of  sinning  (posse  non  peccare  et 
non  posse  peccare),  not  because  the  liberty  of  the  will,  or  the  lowliness  of 
nature,  is  abolished,  but  because  man  will  never  be  deprived  of  confirming 
grace,  which  admits  no  sin ;  Cap.  16  (see  Liebner ,  p.  403). — In  the  first  con¬ 
dition  God  shares  with  man,  in  the  second  man  shares  with  the  devil,  in  the 
third  God  receives  all :  Cap.  10,  ibid. — In  Paimund  of  Sab  unde,  too,  the  ab- 

*  Ve  here  anticipate  (for  the  sake  of  the  connection,  and  to  give  all  he  says  at  once) 
points  considered  in  tho  following  sections,  which  are  to  be  compared. 


22 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


stract  notion  of  (or  destination  to)  freedom  is  distinguished  from  its  actual 
use  (connected  with  the  distinction  between  the  image  of  God,  and  resem¬ 
blance  to  God,  comp,  note  4),  Tit.  239  :  Item  quia  homo  debuit  ita  formari, 
ut  posset  acquirere  aliquid  bonum,  quod  nondum  sibi  datum  fuerat.  Quamvis 
enim  perfectus  esset  in  natura,  tamen  nondum  erat  totaliter  consummatus, 
quia  aliquod  majus  adhuc  habere  poterat,  sed  non  nisi  voluntarie  et  non  per 
violentiam. . . .  Si  enim  homo  fuisset  totaliter  completes  et  transmutatus  et 
consummatus  in  gloria,  ut  amplius  nihil  posset  ei  dari,  jam  per  ipsum  liberum 
arbitrium  non  posset  aliquid  lucrari  nec  mereri  sibi.  Et  sic  in  natura  hom- 
inis  perfecta  duo  status  sunt  considerandi ;  scilicet  status,  in  quo  posset 
mereri  et  lucrari  per  ipsum  liberum  arbitrium,  et  status,  in  quo  esset  com¬ 
pletes  et  consummatus  in  gloria ;  et  sic  est  status  meriti  et  status  proemii. 
....Et  ideo  convenientissimum  fuit,  quod  Deus  dedit  liomini  occasionem 
merendi,  nec  in  vanurn  esset  creatus  in  statu  merendi.  Et  quia  nihil  est 
magis  efficax  ad  merendum,  quam  pura  obedientia  seu  opus  factum  ex  pura 
obedientia  et  mera. .  .  .convenientissimum  fuit,  quod  Deus  daret  prseceptum 
homini,  in  quo  pura  obedientia  appareret  et  exerceretur. .  .  . Et  quia  magis 
apparet  obedientia  in  prsecepto  negativo,  quam  affirmative,  ideo  debuit  esse 
illud  mandatum  prohibitivum  magis  quam  affirmativum. . . . Et  ut  homo 
maxime  esset  attentus  ad  servandum  obedientiam  et  fugiendum  inobedien- 
tiam,  et  firmiter  constaret  ei  de  voluntate  Dei  mandatis,  conveniens  fuit,  ut 
Deus  apponeret  pcenam  cum  prsecepto,  et  talem  pcenam,  qua  non  posset 
cogitari  major,  scilicet  pcenam  mortis.  Comp.  Matzke ,  Theol.  des  Eaim. 
von  Sabunde,  79. — John  Wessel  defined  the  liberty  which  man  possessed  in  his 
original  state,  so  as  to  ascribe  to  him  the  unlimited  power  of  attaining  and 
performing,  without  the  assistance  of  others,  or  the  influence  of  education, 
that  which  the  idea  of  humanity  implies,  viz.,  such  a  perfection  as  elevated 
him  to  communion  with  God  :  see  TJllmann ,  p.  240,  41. 


§  1T6. 

THE  FALL  OF  MAN,  AND  SIN  IN  GENERAL. 

One  of  the  leading  questions,  most  debated,  was,  in  what  the  fall 
of  our  first  parents  consisted  ?  also,  in  what  the  nature  of  sin  in  gen¬ 
eral  consists  ?  Questions  of  secondary  moment,  such  as,  whether 
Adam's  sin  or  Eve's  were  the  greater  ?  were  only  occasionally  made 
the  subject  of  discqssion.1  Even  during  the  present  period  there  were 
some,  and  towards  its  close  Agrippa  of  Nettersheim  in  particular, 
who  asserted  that  the  sin  of  the  first  man  consisted  in  the  awaken¬ 
ing  of  his  carnal  propensities,  and  who  endeavored  to  establish  their 
opinion  by  the  aid  of  allegorical  interpretation.3  But  the  pre¬ 
vailing  view  of  the  church  divines  was,  that  the  sin  is  not  to  be 
sought  in  one  single  act,  but  in  the  disobedience  of  man  to  G-od, 
which  took  its  rise  principally  in  pride.3  After  the  example  of 
Augustine,  the  definitions  respecting  the  nature  of  sin  were  for  the 


§  176.  The  Fall  of  Man,  and  Sin  in  General.  23 

most  part  negative.4  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  endeavored  to  explain  the 
nature  of  sin  from  the  conflict  of  two  tendencies  in  man,  the 
one  of  which  (appetitus  justi)  leads  to  God,  the  other  (appetitus 
commodi)  to  the  world.  The  latter  propensity  is  not  evil  in  it¬ 
self,  but  the  abandonment  of  the  right  medium  is  the  cause  of 
sin.6  The  mystics  supposed  sin  to  consist  in  this,  that  man,  as  a 
creature,  strives  to  obtain  independence ;  and  the  author  of  the  work 
entitled  “  Deutsche  Theologie,”  carried  this  notion  so  far  as  to  say, 
that  in  this  respect  the  fall  of  man  is  like  that  of  the  devil.6  The 
further  enumeration  and  classification  of  particular  sins,  their  divis¬ 
ion  into  sins  mortal  and  venial,  belong  rather  to  the  history  of 
ethics,  than  to  that  of  doctrines.7 

1  Anselm,  De  Peccato  Orig.  c.  9.  Though  Eve  first  disobeyed  the  divine 
command,  Adam,  as  the  real  father  of  the  human  race,  is  also  the  father  of 
sin.  Many  of  the  reasons  urged  on  either  side,  are  to  be  found  in  the  works  of 
Peter  Lombard  (Lib.  ii.  Dist.  22),  and  Thomas  Aquinas ,  P.  ii.  Qu.  163,  Art.  4. 
Bonaventura  (Brevil.  iii.  3,  4)  divides  the  guilt  between  the  two,  but  says 
that  the  punishment  was  double  in  the  case  of  the  woman.  On  the  contrary, 
according  to  Agrippa  of  Nettersheim,  Adam  sinned  knowingly,  Eve  was 
only  misled  (Opp.  T.  ii.  p.  528)  ;  see  Meiners  Biograpkie,  p.  233.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  Tauter  (Predigten,  i.  p.  61),  theologians  assert  that  we  should  have 
suffered  no  harm,  if  Eve  alone  had  eaten  of  the  fruit.  Concerning  the 
farther  question  of  the  scholastics,  whether  sin  would  have  been  communi¬ 
cated  to  Eve  if  Adam  had  transgressed  the  divine  command  before  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  his  wife,  compare  Cramer,  vii.  p.  534,  ss.  On  the  singular  opinions 
of  Pulleyn,  see  ib.  vol.  vi.  p.  481,  ss. 

2  Disputatio  de  Orig.  Pecc,  in  Opp.  T.  ii.  p.  553,  ss.,  quoted  by  Meiners \ 
1.  c.  p.  254,  note  3  (he  regarded  the  serpent  as  the  membrum  serpens,  lubri-- 
cum.)  The  opinion  according  to  which  sin  consists  in  the  first  instance  in 
sensuality  was  most  decidedly  opposed  by  Anselm,  De  Pecc.  Orig.  c.  4., : 
Nec  isti  appetitus,  quos  Ap.  carnem  vocat  (Gal.  v.). , .  .justi  vel  injusti  sunt 
per  se  considerandi.  Non  enim  justum  faciunt  vel  injustum  sentientero,  sed 
injustum  tantum  voluntate,  cum  non  debet,  consentientem.  Non  eos  sentire „ 
sed  eis  consentire  peccatum  est. 

3  John  Damascenus  De  Fide  Orth.  ii.  30.  (in  calce)  :  oOev  real  OedrTjrog- 
iXnidi  b  i pevorrjg  deXea&t,  rov  aOXiov,  teat  npog  rb  idiov  rijg  eirdpoecog^ 
vipog  avayayebv,  TTpog  rb  ogoiov  naraepEpei  rrjg  TiTcioEOjg'  fiapaOpov; — Ac¬ 
cording  to  Anselm ,  all  self-will  of  the  creature  is  an  injury  to  the  majesty  o§ 
God  (treason) ;  De  Fide  Trin.  cap.  5  (. Passe ,  ii.  306)  :  Quicunque^  propria*, 
voluntate  utitur,  ad  similitudinem  Dei  per  rapinam  nititur,  et  Deum  propria; 
dignitate  et  singulari  excellentia  privare,  quantum  in  ipso  est,  conviiicitur. — - 
Peter  Lombard ,  Lib.  ii.  Dist.  22.  Thomas  Aquinas,  P.  ii.  Qu.  163;  Never¬ 
theless  sensuality  (i.  e.,  the  desire  after  the  forbidden  fruit)  was  also  men¬ 
tioned  as  a  subordinate  principle;  see  Tauler's  Predigten  i.  pv.  51,  79; 
Cramer,  vii.  p.  524. 

4  John  Damascenus,  Lib,  ii.  q,  30  ;  fH  yap  fegLffig,  ovdev  'irepow 


24 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


jL7]  av (!%(*) prjoig  rov  ayadov. — John  Scotus  Erigena  looked  upon  sin  from 
the  negative  point  of  view,  by  comparing  it  to  a  leprosy  which  infects 
humanity,  but  which  is  to  be  removed  by  divine  grace  (De  Div.  Nat.  v.  5, 
p.  230),  and  then  continues  as  follows:  Magisque  dicendum,  quod  ipsa  na- 
tura  quae  ad  imaginem  Dei  facta  est,  sua3  pulchritudinis  vigorem  integrita- 
temque  essentiae  nequaquam  perdidit,  neque  perdere  potest.  Divina  siqui- 
dem  forma  semper  incommutabilis  permanet;  capax  tamen  corruptibilium 
poena  peccati  facta  est.  .  .  .  quicquid  vero  naturali  corpori  ex  concretionibus 
elementorum  et  animae  ex  sordibus  irrationabilium  motuum  superadditum 
est,  in  fluxu  et  corruptione  semper  est.  In  his  opinion,  “  Sin  is  only  a 
vanishing  and  self -abolishing  element ,  and  therefore  has  not  the  signifi- 
cancy  of  a  moral  act;  Baur ,  Versohnungslehre,  p.  135;  Comp,  also  Baur , 
Trinitatslehre,  ii.  305  :  “  Sin  is  to  him  not  something  accidental ,  orig¬ 
inating  in  time ,  but  original  in  creation  and  in  human  naturej  (A  view 
allied  to  pantheism). — On  the  other  hand,  Abelard  (in  his  treatise  Scito 
Teipsum),  attaching  particular  importance  to  the  act  as  performed  with  the 
conscious  approval  of  the  person  acting,  makes  sin  (formally)  depend  on  the 
intention  with  which  anything  is  done  ;  see  the  extracts  given  by  De  Wette , 
Sittenlehre  iii.  p.  124,  ss. — Anselm’’ s  definitions  of  sin  are  also  of  a  negative 
character;  Cur  Deus  Homo  i.  11  :  Non  est  itaque  aliud  peccare,  quam  Deo 
non  reddere  debitum ;  De  Conceptu  Virginali  c.  27  :  j ustitise  debitaj  nudi- 
tas ;  also  in  De  Casa  Diaboli,  c.  1.  See  Hcisse,  ii.  394  sq.  Miinscher  ed.  by 
Yon  Colin,  i.  p.  121,  ss.  [On  Abelard,  see  Neander ,  Hist.  Dogm.  511.] 

5  According  to  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  (Lib.  i.  P.  vi.  c.  1-22,  quoted  by 
Liebner,  p.  412,  ss.),  the  first  sin  was  the  twofold  disobedience  to  the  law  of 
nature  and  the  law  of  discipline.  Having  laid  that  basis,  he  proceeds  to  a 
further  scientific  examination  of  the  nature  of  sin.  He  supposed  it  to  con¬ 
sist  in  the  discord  existing  between  the  appetites  justi,  and  the  appetitus 
commodi,  both  of  which  are  innate.  Man  abandoning  the  right  medium, 
desiring  the  higher  good,  rising  above  himself,  and  striving,  in  the  pride  and 
presumption  of  his  heart,  both  to  be  equal  to  God,  and  to  possess  him  before 
the  appointed  time,  fell  from  his  state  of  innocence.  Thus  it  happened  that 
he  also  lost  the  right  medium  in  his  desires  after  the  inferior  good  ;  for  as 
the  mind  of  man,  which  held  likewise  the  reins  of  the  flesh,  did  not  succeed 
in  its  higher  efforts,  and  fell,  as  it  were,  out  of  the  right  medium,  he  aban¬ 
doned  also  the  reins  of  the  flesh,  and  let  it  go  without  measure  and  pre¬ 
caution,  in  consequence  of  which,  all  external  evils  broke  in  upon  him 
(tr&nsgressio  superioris  et  inferioris  appetitus.)  The  former  loss  was  accord¬ 
ingly  culpa,  the  latter  both  culpa  and  poena ;  the  one  was  a  loss  for  the 
spirit,,  the  other  for  the  flesh,  since  man  retained  the  irregular  appetitus 
commodi  without  obtaining  the  commodum  itself.  Abandoning  the  appe¬ 
titus  justi,  man  lost  at  the  same  time  the  justitia,  which  is  not  only  in¬ 
separable  from  it,  but  also  consists  in  it;  nothing  was  left  to  him  but  the 
unsatisfied  appetitus  commodi,  which  is  here  on  earth  a  foretaste  of  hell,  a 
necessitas  concupiscendi,  etc.,  c.  11-22.  “  From  ivhat  is  said  above ,  it  fol¬ 

lows  that  evil  does  not  consist  either  in  the  object  desired  ( for  man  always 
desires,  a  good  even  in  the  concupiscentia ),  or  in  the  act  of  desiring ,  in  put- 
ling  the  faculty  of  desire  into  exercise  ( for  it  is  a  gift  of  God),  but  only  in 


§  177.  Original  Sin. 


25 


not  keeping  the  proper  medium  in  our  desires ,”  Liehner  ].  c.  Hugo  of  St. 
Victor  also  endeavored  to  give  an  answer  to  the  question,  how  the  first  siii 
could  possibly  have  been  committed  by  one  who  was  created  good  ?  Adam 
could  not  have  sinned,  either  nolens  or  volens.  He  only  ceased  to  desire  the 
good  (justum  velle  desiit),  c.  121.  Conformed  to  this  are  his  negative  defini¬ 
tions,  c.  16  :  Et  ideo  malum  nihil  est,  cum  id,  quod  esse  deberet,  non  est ; 
and  Lib.  i.  P.  v.  c.  26  :  Peccatum  nec  substantia  est,  nec  de  substantia,  sed 
privatio  boni  (See  Liehner ,  p.  415). — Concerning  the  views  of  Wessel  on 
the  nature  of  sin  (want  of  love)  compare  Ullmann,  1.  c.  p.  241. 

6  Deutsche  Theologie,  cap.  2.  “The  Scriptures,  faith  and  truth,  say,  that 
sin  is  only  the  turning  of  the  creature  from  the  unchangeable  good  to  the 
changeable,  i.  e .,  from  the  perfect  to  the  imperfect  and  incomplete,  and  prin¬ 
cipally  to  himself.  Now  observe,  when  man  puts  himself  in  possession  of 
anything  that  is  good,  or  appropriates  it  as  real  being  (i.  e .,  when  he  imagines 
that  he  has  his  being  from  himself,  and  when  he  wants  to  be  something, 
while  he  is  nothing) ;  or  as  life  (i.  e .,  when  he  imagines  that  he  has  life  in 
himself);  or  as  knowledge  (i.  e.,  when  he  imagines  that  he  knows  much  and 
can  do  much);  in  short,  when  he  endeavors  to  obtain  all  that  which  is  called 
good,  imagining  that  he  is  the  same,  or  that  the  same  belongs  to  him,  in  all 
such  cases  he  rebels  against  his  nature.  For  what  else  did  the  devil,  or  what 
was  his  rebellion  or  his  fall,  if  not  that  lie  thought  himself  something,  and 
presumed  to  be  something,  and  pretended  that  something  belonged  to  him  ? 
This  presumption  to  be  something,  his  self-hood  [TcA],  ( i .  e.,  his  self-love), 
his  me  [MicK\,  (i.  e.,  his  self-will),  his  to  me  \Mir\,  (i.  e .,  his  self-esteem), 
and  his  mine  \Mein\,  (i.  e.y  his  own  good),  were,  and  are  still,  his  rebellion 
and  his  fall.”  Cap.  3  :  “  What  else  did  Adam  do  than  what  Lucifer  does  ? 
They  say,  that  Adam  fell  and  was  lost,  because  he  ate  the  apple.  I  say : 
He  fell  by  accepting,  assuming,  or  appropriating  to  himself  that  which  be¬ 
longed  to  God,  viz.,  by  his  ego  ( i .  e .,  his  self-love),  by  his  me  (i.  e.  his  self- 
will),  by  his  mine  (i.  e.,  because  of  the  good  which  he  had  usurped),  and  by 
his  to  me  (i.  e.,  for  his  own  honor,  wisdom,  etc.)  Though  he  had  eaten  seven 
apples ,  if  there  had  been  no  appropriation  or  assumption,  he  would  not  have 
fallen ;  as  soon  as  he  appropriated  the  apple  as  his,  he  fell,  even  though  he 
had  never  bitten  it.” 

7  De  Wette ,  christliche  Sittenlehre  iii.  p.  147,  ss.  (after  Thomas  Aquinas.) 


\ 


§  177. 

CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FIRST  SIN.  ORIGINAL  SIN.  FREEDOM 

OF  THE  WILL. 

The  more  intimate  the  supposed  connection  between  the  primitive 
state  of  man  and  the  justitia  originalis ,  the  greater  was  the  fall. 
The  theologians  of  the  Greek  Church  contented  themselves  with 
believing  in  a  deterioration  of  the  moral  power  of  man,  and  retained 
the  earlier  notions  concerning  his  liberty.1  In  the  Western  Church 


26 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


almost  all  the  schoolmen  followed  Augustine*  though  some  of  them 
adopted  opinions  which,  in  many  essential  points,  differed  from  his 
fundamental  principles.  Thus  Abelard ,  among  the  earlier  scholas¬ 
tics,  understood  by  hereditariness  of  the  first  sin,  not  the  sin  itself, 
hut  its  punishment.3  Several  of  the  later  schoolmen  also,  especially 
Duns  Scotus  and  his  followers,  manifested  a  leaning  toward  Semi- 
pelagianism,  while  Thomas  Aquinas  and  his  school  adhered  more 
strictly  to  the  definitions  of  Augustine.4  The  mystics  in  general 
bewailed  the  entire  depravity  of  the  old  man  (Adam),  but  avoided 
indulging  in  subtile  definitions.6  And,  lastly,  •  the  evangelical 
theologians,  previous  to  the  age  of  the  Reformation,  such  as  John 
Wessel ,  also  looked  upon  the  unregenerate  as  the  children  of  wrath, 
though  they  made  a  distinction  between  the  responsibility  for  orig¬ 
inal  sin  and  for  actual  transgression.8 

1  John  of  Damascus ,  De  Fide  Orth.  ii.  c.  12,  p.  178:*  ’IdnoiqGe  de  avrov 
(pvaec  dvafidprrjrov  nail  OeXqGei  avre^ovoiov  dvafidprqrov  de  (pqpij  oi>x  dg 
pq  emdexbpevov  apaprlav  ( povov  yap  to  Oelov  apapTiag  egtlv  avenideicTOv), 
aXX’  oi>x  &£  ev  rq  (pvoei  to  apaprdveiv  s^ovra,  ev  Tq  npoaipeoei  de  paX- 
Xov  qrot  e^ovaiav  exovra  peveiv  nal  npononTeiv  iv  r<p  ayaOb ),  Tq  Oeia 
Gvvepyovpevov  xdpiTi,  d>oavT(*)g  nal  TpeneGdai  etc  rov  naXov,  teal  ev  rd) 
Hand)  y ivEGdai,  rov  Oeov  napaxopovvTog  did  to  avTel-ovoiov .  Ovk  dpSTq 

yap  to  (3ia  yivopevov.  Comp.  c.  22,  p  187-88,  c.  24,  27 . Further,  c. 

27,  194-95  :  E l  de  toDto,  e%  avdyrtqg  napvfiGTaTai  tg5  Xoyuid)  to  avTe^ov- 
glov •  q  yap  ova  eGTai  Xoymbv ,  q  Xoyinov  ov  nvpiov  egtcli  npdi-ecov  nal 
avTe^ovGiov.  "O dev  nail  ra  aXoya  ova  eIglv  avTe^ovGia'  ayovTai  yap  paXXov 
vno  Tqg  fvGecog,  qnep  dyovar  dio  ovde  avTiXeyovoi  Tq  (pvGiitq  6pe%ei,  aXX’ 
dpa  dpsxOd)Gi  Tivog ,  6ppd)ot  npog  Tqv  npa^iv.  fO  de  avOpomog,  Xoyucog  dv, 
ayei  paXXov  Tqv  fvGiv  qrrep  dyeTar  dto  nal  opeyopevog ,  elrrep  eOeXot ,  e%ov- 
Giav  exu  dvaxcuTLGat  Tqv  ope^iv ,  q  dnoXovQqoai  av>Tq.  "O dev  Ta  pev  dXoya 
ovde  enaivecTai ,  ovde  ip eyeTar  o  de  dvOponog  nal  enaivelTai  nal  fey STai. 
C.  30,  p.  198  :  (6  Oeog )  ov  yap  OeXec  Tqv  tcanlav  y iveGdai,  ovde  (did^eTai  Tqv 
apsTqv.  Notice  the  usage  of  napa  fvGiv,  and  naTa  (pvoiv ,  ibid.  p.  100,  and 
compare  it  with  Augustine’s  usage  of  natura. — In  his  opinion,  the  effects  of 
the  fall  consist  in  this,  that  man  is  OavaTcp  vnevOvvcg  nal  fOopa  nal  novcp 
na6v77o(3XqQqoeTai  nal  TaXairuvpov  eXnov  (3l°v  (ibid.)  In  the  moral  aspect 
man  is  yvpvoOelg  Tqg  xdpiTog  nal  Tqv  npog  Oeov  nappqolav  anendvGapevog 
(Lib.  iii.  c.  1.)  Comp.  iv.  20. — John  Damascenus  was  also  followed  by  the 
rest  of  the  Greek  theologians,  Theodore  Studita ,  Tlieophylactus ,  Euthymius 
Zigabenus ,  Nicetas  Choniates ,  and  Nicolas  of  Methone.  The  views  of  the 
latter  (taken  from  his  Refut.)  are  given  by  Ullmann ,  1.  c.  p.  86,  ss.  He  also 
laid  great  stress  upon  the  freedom  of  the  will,  and  held  that  the  divine  image 
was  only  obscured  by  the  fall. 

3  Anselm  expressed  himself  in  very  strict  terms  concerning  the  imputa- 

*  The  passage  in  question  refers,  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  first  man,  but,  as  may  be 
seen  from  the  context,  still  admits  of  a  general  application  in  the  case  of  all  men. 


§  177.  Original  Sin. 


27 


tion  of  original  sin,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  milder  views,  De  Orig.  Pecc.  c. 
3  :  Si  vero  dicitur  originate  peccatum  non  esse  absolute  dicendum  peccatum, 
sed  cum  additamento  originale  peccatum,  sicut  pictus  homo  non  vere  homo 
est,  sed  vere  est  homo  pictus,  profecto  sequitur  :  quia  infans,  qui  nullum 
liabet  peccatum  nisi  originale,  mundus  est  e  peccato :  nec  fuit  solus  inter 
homines  filius  virginis  in  utero  matris  et  nascens  de  matre  sine  peccato  :  et 
aut  non  damnatur  infans,  qui  moritur  sine  baptismo,  nullum  habens  peccatum 
prseter  originale,  aut  sine  peccato  damnatur.  Sed  nihil  horum  accipimus. 
Quare  omne  peccatum  est  injustitia,  et  originale  peccatum  est  absolute  pecca¬ 
tum,  unde  sequitur,  quod  est  injustitia.  Item  si  Deus  non  damnat  nisi  prop¬ 
ter  injustitiam,  damnat  autem  aliquem  propter  originale  peccatum  :  ergo  non 
est  aliud  originale  peccatum,  quam  injustitia.  Quod  si  ita  est,  originale 
peccatum  non  est  aliud  quam  injustitia,  i.  c.,  absentia  debitse  justifies,  etc. — 
Nevertheless  it  is  not  the  sin  of  Adam  as  such,  but  man’s  own  sin  which  is 
imputed  to  him,  c.  25  :  Quapropter  cum  damnatur  infans  pro  peccato  origi- 
nali,  damnatur  non  pro  peccato  Adse,  sed  pro  suo ;  nam  si  ipse  non  haberet 
suum  peccatum,  non  damnaretur. — lie  opposed  the  theory  of  the  material 
propagation  of  sin  (by  traducianism)  in  what  follows,  c.  7.  (compare  above, 
§  173,  note  4)  :  Sicut  in  Adamomnes  peccavimus,  quando  ille  peccavit :  non 
quia  tunc  peccavimus  ipsi,  qui  nondum  eramus,  sed  quia  de  illo  futuri  eramus, 
et  tunc  facta  est  illi  necessitas,  ut  cum  essemus,  peccaremus  (Rom.  5).  Simili 
modo  de  immundo  semine,  “in  iniquitatibus  et  in  peccatis  concipi”  potest  homo 
intelligi,  non  quod  in  semine  sit  immunditia  peccati,  aut  peccatum  sive  ini- 
quitas ;  sed  quia  ab  ipso  semine  et  ipsa  conceptione,  ex  qua  incipit  homo 
esse,  accipit  necessitatem,  ut  cum  habebit  animam  rationalem,  habeat  peccati 
immunditiam,  quae  non  est  aliud  quam  peccatum  et  iniquitas.  Nam  etsi  ex 
vitiosa  concupiscentia  semine  generetur  infans,  non  tamen  magis  est  in  semine 
culpa,  quam  est  in  sputo  vel  in  sanguine,  si  quis  mala  voluntate  exspuit  aut 
de  sanguine  suo  aliquid  emittit,  non  enim  sputum  aut  sanguis,  sed  mala 
voluntas  arguitur.) * — On  the  question  how  far  all  men  have  sinned  in  Adam  ? 
compare  ch.  1  and  2,  and  ch.  21,  22.  Anselm  also  thought  that  there  was 
a  kind  of  mutual  action  between  original  sin,  and  personal  sin,  c.  26  :  Sicut 
persona  propter  naturam  peccatrix  nascitur:  ita  natura  propter  personam 
'magis  peccatrix  redditur. — Concerning  the  mode  of  the  propagation  of  sin , 
viz.,  whether  it  is  communicated  in  the  first  instance  to  the  soul,  or  to  the 
body,  etc.,  the  scholastics  differed  in  their  opinions.  Comp.  Munscher ,  ed. 
by  von  Colin,  p.  132  ;  especially  the  opinion  of  Peter  Lombard ,  Lib.  ii.  Dist. 
31  :  [In  concupiscentia  et  libidine  concipitur  caro  formanda  in  corpus 
prolis.  Unde  caro  ipsa  quae  concipitur  in  vitiosa  concupiscentia  pqJluitur  et 
corrumpitur:  ex  cujus  contactu  anima  cum  infunditur  macul^m  trahit  qua 

°  Anselm  would  not  have  admitted  the  force  of  the  argument  frequently  urged  in  favor 
of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  viz.,  that  certain  moral  dispositions,  which  may  be  called 
hereditary  sins,  are  propagated  like  certain  physical  disorders,  inasmuch  as  he  taught, 
c.  23  (in  connection  with  what  has  been  said  above),  that  only  the  sin  of  Adam  is  trans¬ 
mitted  to  his  posterity,  but  not  that  of  parents  to  their  children.  His  reasoning  was 
quite  logical,  because  the  idea  of  original  sin  would  otherwise  become  too  relative  !  Con* 
cerning  the  relation  of  Anselm’s  theory  to  the  later  Lutheran  (Flacian  ?)  see  Mohler , 
Kleine  Schriften,  i.  p.  167. 


23 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


polluitur  ct  fit  rea,  id  cst  vitium  concupiscentiao,  quod  est  originate  peccatum. 
Pet.  Lomb.  Sent.  lib.  ii.  Dist.  31,  Litt.  C.] — Some  of  the  later  theologians, 
adhering  to  Augustine  and  Anselm,  taught  similar  views,  e.  g.,  Savonarola  • 
Quid  autem  est  peccatum  originale,  nisi  privatio  justitiae  origin alis  ?  Ideo 
homo,  conceptus  et  natus  in  hujusmodi  peccato,  totus  obliquus  est,  totus 
curvus.  .  .  .Peccatum  itaquc  originale  radix  est  omnium  peccatorum,  fomes 
eniin  omnium  iniquitatum  :  Medit.  in  Psalm,  p.  17,  quoted  by  Meier,  Savon¬ 
arola,  p.  260.  [Anselm  wrote  a  treatise  De  libero  Arbitrio,  taking  the  ground 
that  liberty  does  not  consist  in  freedom  of  choice — as  this  will  not  apply  to 
God  and  the  blessed  spirits:  as  we  advance  in  virtue  the  possibility  of  sin¬ 
ning  diminishes.  Ilis  definition  is :  Arbitrium  potens  servare  rectitudinem 
voluntatis  propter  ipsam  rectitudinem.  Yet  Anselm  does  not  assert  the  total 
loss  of  freedom  by  the  fall :  De  lib.  Arb.  cap.  3  :  Licet  peccato  se  subdidissent, 
libertatom  tamen  arbitrii  naturalem  in  se  interimere  nequiverunt.  So  too 
Bernard ,  Gratia  et  lib.  Arbitrium,  c.  8  :  Manet  post  peccatum  liberum  ar- 
bitrium ;  etsi  miserum,  tamen  integrum.  Et  quod  se  J3er  se  homo  non 
sufficit  excutere  a  peccato  sive  miseria,  non  liberi  arbitrii  signat  destructionem 
sed  duarum  reliquarum  privationem.  So  the  Lombard ,  II.  Dist.  25  :  Cor- 
rupta  est  ergo  libertas  arbitrii  per  peccatum  et  ex  parte  perdita ....  Ecce 
liberum  arbitrium  dicit  [scil.  Augustinus]  hominem  amisisse :  non  quia  post 
peccatum  non  habuerit  liberum  arbitrium  sed  quia  libertatem  arbitrii  perdidit: 
non  quidem  omnem  sed  libertatem  a  miseria  et  a  peccato. — Abelard  says 
that  freedom  is  the  power  of  doing  what  we  decide  to  be  according  to  reason. 
Comp.  N candor,  Hist.  Dogm.  525,  on  the  Delation  of  Grace  and  Freedom.] 

3  Since  Abelard  maintained  that  the  free  consent  of  man  was  necessary 
to  constitute  sin  (§  1 76,  note  4),  he  could  not  speak  of  sin,  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  in  the  case  of  new-born  infants ;  yet  he  did  not  feel  dis¬ 
posed  to  deny  original  sin  altogether.  He  therefore  took  the  word  “  sin”  in 
a  twofold  sense,  applying  it  to  the  punishment,  as  well  as  to  sin  itself.  In¬ 
fants  have  a  part  only  in  the  former,  but  not  in  the  latter.  Nor  did  Abelard 
see  how  unbelief  in  Christ  could  be  imputed  to  infants,  or  to  those  to  whom 
the  gospel  is  not  announced  :  Scito  te  ipsum,  c.  14  (quoted  by  de  Wette , 
Sittenlehre,  iii.  p.  131).  He  also  praised  the  virtues  of  the  better  part  of 
the  Greeks,  especially  of  the  philosophers,  in  particular  of  the  Platonists ; 
Tlieol.  Christ,  ii.  p.  1211  ;  compare  above  §  158,  note  2.  Ncander ,  der 
heilige  Bernhard,  p.  125. 

4  This  difference  is  connected  with  the  one  above  alluded  to  concerning 
the  original  state  of  man  (§175).  As  the  justitia  originalis,  according  to 
Buns  Scotusc,  was  not  so  intimately  united  with  the  nature  of  man,  as 
Thomas  Aquipas  supposed,  the  loss  of  the  supernatural  gifts  was  less  great, 
and  might  take  place  without  such  painful  rupture  as  human  nature  must  un¬ 
dergo,  in  the  strict  Augustinian  view  :  see  Sent.  Lib.  ii.  Dist.  29.  On  the  other 
hand,  Thomas  Aquinas  expressed  himself  as  follows  :  Summ.  P.  ii.  1,  Qu. 
85,  Art.  3  (quoted  by  Munscher,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  p.  134);  Per  justitiam 
originalem  perfecte  ratio  continebat  inferiores  animae  vires,  et  ipsa  ratio  per- 
ficiebatur  a  Deo  et  subjecta.  Ilaec  autem  originalis  justitia  subtracta  est  per 

peccatum  primi  parentis . et  ideo  omnes  vires  animae  remanent  quo- 

dammodo  destitutae  proprio  ordine,  quo  naturaliter  ordinantur  ad  virtutem, 


§  178.  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Virgin.  29 

et  ipsa  destitutio  vulneratio  naturae  dicitur.  Comp.  Bonaventura  Brevil. 
iii.  6,  ss. 

6  Deutsche  Theologie,  c.  14:  “He  who  lives  a  selfish  life,  and  according 
to  the  old  man,  is,  and  may  justly  be  called,  the  child  of  Adam  ;  even  if  he 

have  sunk  so  deep,  as  to  be  the  child  and  brother  of  the  devil . All  who 

follow  Adam  in  his  disobedience  are  dead,  and  can  be  made  alive  only  in 
Christ,  i.  e .,  by  obedience.  As  long  as  a  man  is  Adam,  and  Adam’s  child, 

he  is  his  ownself,  and  lives  without  God . Hence  it  follows,  that  all  the 

children  of  Adam  are  dead  in  respect  to  God . We  shall  never  repent 

of  sin,  nor  commence  a  better  life,  until  we  return  to  obedience . Dis¬ 

obedience  is  sin  itself,”  etc. 

6  JVessel,  De  Magnit.  Pass.  c.  59,  and  other  passages  quoted  by  Ullmann , 
p.  244. — Savonarola  taught  in  a  similar  manner  concerning  the  posterity  of 
Adam:  rationem  culpse  non  habent,  reatu  non  carent.  (Triumph.  Cruc.  Lib. 
iii.  c.  9.  p.  280,  ss.  quoted  by  Meier,  p.  261.) 

Besides  original  sin,  there  were  yet  other  effects  of  the  fall  (such  as  death 
and  other  evils),  which  had  before  this  been  made  prominent  by  the  early 
church,  and  to  which  even  a  greater  importance  was  attached,  on  account  of 
their  connection  with  the  imputation  of  sin.  Death  itself  did  not  actually 
enter  into  the  world  till  later,  but  mortality  came  at  the  same  time  with  sin. 
On  the  question,  in  how  far  God  may  be  said  to  have  been  the  author  of 
•death?  etc.,  see  Cramer ,  vii.  p.  528.  According  to  Scotus  Erigena ,  the 
distinction  of  the  sexes  is  the  effect  of  sin;  De  Div.  Nat.  ii.  5,  p.  49  :  Eeatu 
suae  prsevaricationis  obrutus,  naturae  suae  divisionem  in  masculum  et  fceminam 

est  passus  et . in  pecorinam  corruptibilemque  ex  masculo  et  foemina 

numerositatem  justo  judicio  redactus  est. 


§  178. 

EXCEPTION  TO  THE  UNIVERSAL  CORRUPTION  OP  MANKIND.  THE 
IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION  OP  THE  VIRGIN. 

, Labonlaye ,  die  Frage  der  unbefleckten  Empfangniss,  Berl.,  1854.  Jul.  Muller ,  in  the 
Deutsche  Zeitschrift  f.  christl.  Wissenschaft,  vi.  1.  *Passaglia ,  De  Immaculato 
Deiparse  semper  Virginis  Conceptu.  3  Tom.  Rom.,  1854-5.  \J.  Perrone ,  De  Irn- 

macul.  B.  V.  Marise  Conceptu,  Rom.,  1848.  Jo.  Lannoii,  Opera  Omnia  Prsescriptiones 
de  Concept.  B.  Mar.  Virginis,  1616,  in  Opera  i.  1.  Lambruschini ,  on  Imm.  Cone, 
transl.  New  York,  1855.  Abbe  Laborde,  Impossibility  of  Imm.  Cone,  transl.  Phil., 
1855.  Passaglia,  (as  above)  in  French  version,  4  Tom.,  1855.  H.  Benzinger,  Dio 
Lehre  d.  unbefleckt.  Emp.,  2d  ed.,  1855.  Sylloge  Monument,  ad  Mysterium  Cone. 
Immac.  Virg.,  cura  Ant.  Ballerini,  Rom.,  1855.  Mgr.  J.  B.  Malon  (Bruges)  L’im- 
maculee  Cone,  de  la  bienheureuse  Vierge.  2,  8vo,  Bruxelles,  1857.  Articles  on  the 
dogma,  Christ.  Remembrancer,  1852  and  1858;  Methodist  Quarterly  (New  York), 
1855;  Church  of  Eng.  Quarterly,  1855;  Brownson’s  Quarterly,  1859.] 

The  earlier  notion,  advanced  not  only  by  the  heretic  Pelagius,  but 
also  by  the  orthodox  Athanasius,  according  to  which  some  indi¬ 
viduals  had  remained  free  from  the  general  corruption,  was  not 
likely  longer  to  receive  countenance.1  It  was  only  the  Virgin,  who 


SO  #  Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 

having  long  been  elevated  above  the  lot  of  humanity  by  an  exces¬ 
sive  adoration  (the  Hyper dulia),  was  to  share  the  privilege  of 
her  son  Jesus,  viz.,  to  appear  as  sinless  on  the  page  of  history  ; 
although  theologians  of  repute,  raised  their  voices  against  such  a 
doctrine.1 2  In  the  course  of  the  twelfth  century,  the  dogma  of  the 
immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  gained  great  authority,  in  the 
first  instance  in  France.  But  when  the  canons  of  Lyons  instituted 
(a.  d.  1140)  a  particular  festival  in  honor  of  that  doctrine,  by  which 
a  new  Lady-day  was  added  to  those  already  in  existence,  Bernard 
of  Clairval ,  clearly  perceiving  that  thus  the  specific  difference  be¬ 
tween  our  Saviour  and  the  rest  of  mankind  was  in  danger  of  being 
set  aside,  strongly  opposed  both  the  new  doctrine  and  the  festival.3* 
Albert  the  Great ,  Bonaventura ,  Thomas  Aquinas ,  and  with  him  the 
order  of  the  Dominicans  in  general,  were  also  zealous  in  opposition.4 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Franciscan  monk,  Duns  Scotus ,  endeavored 
to  refute  their  objections,  and  to  demonstrate,  by  subtile  reasoning, 
that  the  superiority  of  the  Bedeemer,  so  far  from  being  lessened, 
was  augmented,  by  supposing  that  he  himself  was  the  cause  of  this 
righteousness  in  the  nature  of  Mary  ;  yet  even  Scotus  only  main¬ 
tained,  that  the  immaculate  conception  was  the  more  probable 
among  the  different  opinions.5 *  The  church  hesitated  for  a  long  time 
without  coming  to  a  decision.8  Pope  Sextus  IV.  at  last  got  out  of 
the  difficulty  by  confirming  the  festival  of  the  immaculate  concep¬ 
tion,  while  he  declared,  that  the  doctrine  itself  should  not  be  called 
heretical,  and  allowed  those  who  differed  to  retain  their  own  views.7 
Of  course  the  controversy  did  not  come  to  an  end,  especially  as  the 
tendency  of  the  age  was  rather  favorable  to  the  dogma. 

1  Thus  Anselm,  De  Pecc.  Orig.  drew  a  distinct  line  between  the  birth  of 
John  the  Baptist  (which  was  relatively  miraculous,  but  did  not,  on  that  ac¬ 

count,  render  him  sinless),  and  the  incarnation  of  the  Bedeemer  (which 
excluded  original  sin).  Sanctification  (i.  e.,  the  being  made  holy)  in  the 
mother’s  womb,  does  not  exclude  original  sin ;  and  this  is  so  specially  noted 
to  avoid  confusion  in  the  matter.  So  it  could  be,  and  was,  assumed,  that 
Mary  was  free  from  actual  sin,  without  being  delivered  from  original  sin. 
See  Gieseler,  Dogmengesch.  558  sq.  Julius  Muller,  loc.  cit.  p.  6.  [Meth. 
Qu.  Beview,  ubi  supra.] 

3  Concerning  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  in  general,  see  §  188  on  the 

worship  of  saints. — The  controversy  on  the  immaculate  conception  was  pre¬ 

ceded  by  that  carried  on  between  Paschasius  Badbert  and  Batramn,  con¬ 

cerning  the  virginity  of  Mary.  Comp.  §  179,  toward  the  end  (on  Christology). 
Badbert  had  already  maintained  that  Mary  was  sanctificata  in  utero  matris 

(in  d’Achery  Spic.  Tom.  i.  p.  46)  ;  but  it  is  difficult  to  define  precisely  what 
he  understood  by  that  expression  (compare  the  following  note).  It  was, 
however,  not  only  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  as  such,  which  led  to  the  sup¬ 

position  of  her  immaculate  conception,  but  this  seemed  a  necessary  inference 


§  178.  The  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Virgin.  31 


from  other  doctrinal  premises.  Theologians  as  acute  as  the  scholastics  could 
not  but  be  aware,  that,  in  order  to  explain  the  miracle  of  Christ’s  sinlessness 
on  physical  grounds,  it  was  not  sufficient  to  assert  that  man  had  no  part  in 
his  generation  ;  for  as  long  as  his  mother  was  supposed  to  be  stained  with 
original  sin,  it  was  impossible  to  deny  that  she  had  part  therein,  unless  they 
had  recourse  (after  the  manner  of  the  Docetae,  and  the  Valentinians,  in 
particular),  to  a  mere  birth  did  crcjXrjvog  (comp.  vol.  i.  §  65.)  Anselm  en¬ 
deavored  to  avoid  this  difficulty,  by  leaving  the  physical  aspect  of  original 
sin  more  or  less  out  of  question  (comp,  the  preceding  §),  De  Pecc.  Orig.  c.  8 
and  c.  11.  He  also  concedes  unreservedly,  that  even  a  sinful  mother  might 
have  conceived  a  Redeemer  without  sin.  Yet  still  he  considers  it  fitting 
(decens  erat)  that  Mary  should  be  purified  from  sin,  before  the  Saviour  of  the 
world  was  conceived  in  her  :  De  Concep.  Virg.  cap.  18,  and  Cur  Deus  Homo, 
ii.  16  :  JBoso  here  declares  decidedly  against  the  immaculate  conception ; 
Virgo  tamen  ipsa,  unde  assumtus  est,  est  in  iniquitatibus  concepta,  et  in 
peccatis  concepit  earn  mater  ejus,  et  cum  originali  peccato  nata  est,  quoniam 
et  ipsa  in  Adam  peccavit,  in  quo  omnes  peccaverunt.  To  this  Anselm  re¬ 
plies  :  Virgo  autem  ilia,  de  quo  file  homo  (Christus)  assumtus  est,  fuit  de 
illis,  qui  ante  nativitatem  ejus  per  eum  mundati  sunt  a  peccatis,  et  in  ejus  ipsa 
munditia  de  ilia  assumta  est.  Comp,  the  conclusion  of  chap.  16  :  Quoniam 
matris  munditia,  per  quam  mundus  est,  non  fuit  nisi  ab  illo,  ipse  quoque  per 

se  ipsum  et  a  se  mundus  fuit.  And  chap.  1 7 . per  quam  (scil.  mortem 

Jesu  Christi)  et  ilia  virgo,  de  qua  natus  est,  et  alii  multi  mundati  sunt  a  pec¬ 
cato.  Comp.  Hasse ,  ii.  461,  556.  Muller  ubi  supra,  12  (with  reference  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  passage  by  Gabriel  Biel,  Sent.  lib.  iii.  Dist.  3, 
qu.  1). 

3  Bernardi ,  Ep.  174,  ad  Canonicos  Lugdunenses,  quoted  by  Gieseler  ii. 
499  ;  Munsclier ,  edit,  by  Von  Colin ,  p.  136;  Laboulaye ,  1.  c.  p.  16.  He, 
too,  admitted  that  Mary  was  sanctified  in  the  womb  (as  Paschasius  taught), 
but  he  did  not  draw  from  that  doctrine  the  inference  that  she  was  free  from 
original  sin  (quatenus  adversus  originale  peccatum  haec  ipsa  sanctificatio 
valuerit,  non  temere  dixerim),  and  continues  as  follows :  Etsi  quibus  vel  pau- 
cis  filiorum  hominum  datum  est  cum  sanctitate  nasci,  non  tamen  et  concipi , 
ut  uni  sane  servaretur  sancti  praerogativa  conceptus,  qui  omnes  sanctificaret, 
solusque  absque  peccato  veniens  purgationem  faceret  peccatorum,  etc.  [Pe¬ 
ter  Lombard ,  Liber  Sent.  iii.  Dist.  3,  sq.,  says  of  the  flesh  of  Mary,  which  our 
Lord  assumed,  that  “  it  was  previously  obnoxious  to  sin,  like  the  other  flesh 
of  the  Virgin,  but  cleansed  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.”  “  The 
Holy  Ghost,  coming  into  Mary,  cleansed  her  from  sin.”  Alexander  of  Hales , 
Summa,  Pars  iii.  qu.  2,  membr.  2,  Art.  1,4:  “  It  was  necessary  that  the 
blessed  Virgin  in  her  generation  should  contract  sin  from  her  parents  ;”  “  she 
was  sanctified  in  the  womb.”  Perrone  attempts  to  set  aside  these  opinions, 
and  that  of  Aquinas  and  others  (below),  by  the  position  that  these  mediaeval 
doctors  refer  to  the  first,  or  active  conception  (the  marital  act),  and  not  to 
the  second  conception  (the  infusion  of  the  soul).  But  Aquinas  says,  that  the 
infusion  of  grace  is  “  after  the  infusion  of  the  soul ;”  and  that  “  before  the 
infusion  of  the  soul  the  Virgin  was  not  sanctified ;”  and  Alexander  of  Hales 


32 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


and  Bonaventura  have  similar  statements.  On  the  views  of  Peter  de  la  Celle, 
bishop  of  Chartres,  see  Neander ,  Hist.  Dogmas,  512.] 

*  Albert  Mag.  Sent.  Lib.  iii.  Dist.  3.  Thomas  Aquinas,  Summ.  P.  iii. 
Qu.  27.  Art.  2,  affirms  a  sanctification  in  the  womb  [sanctificata,  and  not 
sancta],  but  only  after  the  fructifying  of  the  embryo.  But  the  lust  of  sin  is 
not  thereby  wholly  destroyed — secundum  essentiam,  which  was  the  case 
only  in  the  conception  of  Christ  himself,  yet  the  concupiscence  is  restrained 
— quoad  exercitiam  et  operationem.  Only  later,  when  Christ  was  conceived, 
did  the  holiness  of  what  she  bore  work  also  upon  the  mother,  wholly  annul¬ 
ling  the  bias  to  sin.  Comp.  Gieseler ,  Dogmengescli.  560  ;  Jal.  Muller,  1.  c. 
■ — JBonaventura,  too,  with  all  his  enthusiastic  veneration  for  Mary,  did  not 
consider  her  free  from  original  sin  :  Sent.  lib.  iii.#  Dist.  3.  Art.  1,  qu.'2  : 
Teneamus  secundum  quod  communis  opinio  tenet,  Virginis  sanctificatio- 
nem  fuisse  post  originalis  peccati  contractionem  (. Munscher ,  Von  Colin,  ii. 
136  sq.) 

5  In  Sent.  Lib.  iii.  Dist.  3.  Qu.  1.  and  Dist.  18.  Qu.  1.  (quoted  by  Gieseler )  ; 
see  Schrockh,  Kircliengesch.  xxxiii.  p.  362,  ss.  Cramer,  vii.  p.  567,  ss.  Scotus 
takes  his  departure  from  the  different  possibilities :  Deus  potuit  facere  quod 
ipsa  nunquam  fuisset  in  peccato  originali ;  potuit  etiam  fecisse,  ut  tantum 
in  uno  instanti  esset  in  peccato ;  potuit  etiam  facere  ut  per  tempus  aliquod 
esset  in  peccato  et  in  ultimo  illius  temporis  purgaretur.  And  then  he  finds 
it  probable  to  attribute  to  her  the  most  excellent  of  these  possibilities,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  argumentum  congruentise  seu  decentiae.  Se-e  Laboulaye,  1.  c.  22. 
Scotus  at  any  rate  expressed  himself  with  reserve,  and  even  the  Franciscans 
did  not  at  first  receive  the  doctrine  unconditionally. — Aluarus  Pelagias 
(about  a.  d.  1330)  calls  it — nova  et  pliantastica.  But  soon  the  jealousy  of 
the  Orders  mingled  in  the  controversy,  and  even  visions  on  both  sides  were 
brought  to  support  and  refute  the  dogma.  Thus  St.  Bridget  (about  a.  d. 
1370)  testified  for  the  doctrine,  and  St.  Catherine  of  Siena,  as  a  member  of 
the  St.  Dominic  order,  had  visions  against  it. 

6  See  Gieseler  1.  c.  p.  501.  The  festival  spread,  although  the  council  of 
Oxford  (a.  d.  1222)  pronounced  against  its  necessity.  In  the  13th  century 
it  was  widely  observed,  but  only  as  the  festum  conceptionis  in  general,  and 
not  as  the  festum  conceptionis  immaculatce ;  see  the  explanation  of  it  in 
Durantis  Rationale  Div.  Offic.  libr.  vii.  c.  7,  in  Gieseler,  Dogmengesch.  559. 
[Durant  says,  that  it  was  not  celebrated  on  account  of  the  immaculate  con¬ 
ception,  for  this  was  not  the  case ;  but  because  the  mother  of  the  Lord  had 
conceived.  Aquinas  however  vindicates  the  festival  as  including  a  reference 
to  the  sanctity  of  Mary,  but  on  the  ground,  that  the  time  of  her  sanctifica¬ 
tion  could  not  be  accurately  assigned  ;  and  he  opposes  the  immaculate  concep¬ 
tion  itself,  as  derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  Christ.]  At  the  Paris  council 
(1387)  the  Spanish  Dominican  John  de  Montesono  maintained,  that  it  was 
against  the  faith  to  assume  that  original  sin  did  not  embrace  all  men,  Mary 
included.  But  the  University  condemned  this  position,  as  well  as  others  of 
this  divine.  Still  more  definite  than  the  Paris  synod  was  that  of  Basle,  in 
favor  of  the  dogma,  Sess.  xxxvi.  (a.  d.  1439,  Sept.  17th)  in  Ilarduini  Concc. 

T.  viii.  Col.  1266  :  Nos . doctrinam  illam  disserentem  gloriosam  virgi- 

nem  Dei  genitricem  Mariam,  prseveniente  et  operante  divini  numinis  gratia 


§  178.  The  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Virgin.  33 

singulari,  nnnquam  actualiter  subjacuisse  originali  peccato,  sed  immunem 
semper  faisse  ab  omni  originali  et  actuali  culpa  sanctamque  et  immaculatam, 
tamquam  piam  et  consonam  cultui  ecclesiastico,  fidei  catholic®,  rectae  ra- 
tioni  et  sacrae  scripturse,  ab  omnibus  catholicis  approbandum  fore,  tenendam 
et  amplectendam  diffinimus  et  declaramus,  nullique  de  csetero  licitum  esse 
in  contrarium  praedicare  seu  docere.  (The  celebration  of  the  festival  was 
fixed  upon  December  8th.)  The  Dominicans,  however,  adhered  to  their 
opposition ;  thus  particularly  the  Dominican  Torquemada  (Turrecremata). 
The  decrees  of  Basle  could  not  be  considered  as  binding,  because  this  coun¬ 
cil  was  held  to  be  schismatical ;  and  it  was  the  very  men  who  guided  that 
council,  as  D'Ailly  and  Gerson ,  who  maintained  the  new  dogma.  Even  at 
the  council  of  Constance  Gerson  proposed  to  introduce  also  a  festival  in 
honor  of  the  immaculate  conception  of  St.  Joseph !  (Miiller,  ubi  supra,  p.  8). 
[On  the  introduction  of  the  festival  and  the  Paris  decree,  see  Meth.  Quar¬ 
terly,  as  above,  p.  280-82.] 

7  See  the  bulls  of  Pope  Sixtus  IV.,  dated  Febr.  27th,  a.  d.  1474,  and 
Sept.  4th,  a.  d.  1483  (Grave  minus)  in  Extravagant.  Comm.  Lib.  iii.  Tit.  12. 
Cap.  1.  and  2.  (quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by  Von  Colin ,  pp.  168,  169.) 
Comp.  Gieseler ,  iii.  p.  387. 

8  Even  some  of  those  who  afterward  espoused  the  cause  of  the  Deforma¬ 
tion,  were  zealous  advocates  of  the  doctrine  in  question,  such  as  Manuel ,  a 
poet  of  Berne,  who  wrote  on  the  occasion  of  the  scandalous  affair  of  Jetzer: 
compare  his  “  Lied  von  der  reinen  unbefleckten  Empfangniss”  in  the  work 
of  Gruneisen ,  Nic.  Manuel,  p.  297,  ss.,  where  he  also  quotes  the  fathers  as 
authorities,  even  Anselm  and  Thomas  Aquinas*,  and  then  proceeds  thus : 


Auch  miltigklich 
nnd  sicherlich 

der  christen  mensch  das  glaubet, 
das  gott  d’  herr, 
on  widersperr, 

seyn  mutter  hat  bedawet  (begabet) 


mit  heiligkeit, 
gnadrich  erfreit, 
sunst  wer  sye  vndg’legen 
sein  zorn  ins  teufels  pflegen, 
daz  nit  mocht  seyn, 
d’  lilien  reyn, 


Anselmus  mer, 
in  seyner  leer, 

von  dir  hat  schon  betrachtet. 
Er  haltet  nit 
liebhabers  sitt, 

der  deyn  hoch  fest  verachtet, 
das  dich  gantz  clor 
eert  preisst  furwor, 
empfange  on  all  siinde. 

etc. 


Thomas  Aquin 

halt  von  dir  fin, 

du  seysst  die  reinst  uff  erden, 

on  schuld  und  siind, 

fur  Adams  kind, 

gefreyet  billich  werden, 

in  der  taglich, 

auch  nicht  todtlich, 

keyn  erbsund  mocht  beliben. 

Desgleichen  thund  auch  scriben 

Scotus  subtil, 

d’  lerer  vil, 

die  schul  Paris, 

mit  grossem  fliss, 

zu  Basel  ists  beschlossen. 

Die  kristlich  kilch, 

mit  bistumb  glich, 

halt  das  gantz  unverdrossen. 


3 


34 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


von  dorn  bebut, 
heJlischer  flut. 

In  ewigkeit  bestandtlich 
bistu  allein, 
cbristlicbe  ein, 
behalten  bast  gar  trewlicb. 
Die  sunn  ibr  scbein 
offt  leytet  ein 
in  unflatiges  kote, 
belibt  docb  keck 
on  mass  und  fleck 
in  ibrer  scbon  on  note. 


Aucb  gold  on  luft, 

in  erdes  cluft, 

wecbst  unverseret  glantze. 

Also  beleib  aucb  gantze 
Maria  bocb 

on  erbsund  bocb  (pocb — docb) 

an  sel  und  leib, 

vors  teufels  streyt 

und  gottes  zorn  gefreyet. 

Gottlieb  er  gwalt 

in  ibr  beym  stalt, 

und  sye  vor  unfal  weybet,  etc. 


FOURTH  DIVISION. 


CHRISTOLOGY  AND  SOTERIOLOGY. 

§  179. 

THE  GREEK  CHURCH  ON  CHRISTOLOGY.  THE  ADOPTION  CONTROYERSY 

IN  THE  WEST.  NIHILIANISM. 

*  Dor ner,  Entwickelungsgeschichte  der  Christologie,  p.  106,  as.,  Walch ,  Oh.  G.  F,  His- 
toria  Adoptianorum.  Gott.  1755-58.  Frobenii  Dissertatio  Hist orica  de  Ilseresi 
Elipandi  et  Felicia  (in  his  edition  of  the  Works  of  Alcuin,  T.  i.  p.  923,  ss.)  [ Christ - 
Her,  John  Scotus  Erigena,  330-361.] 

After  the  Monothelite  controversy  had  been  brought  to  a  close  in 
the  East,  no  further  objections  were  there  raised  against  the  church 
doctrine  of  two  natures  and  two  wills  in  one  and  the  same  person. 
But,  in  the  course  of  the  controversy  respecting  images,  the  ques¬ 
tion,  whether  it  was  right  to  represent  Christ  in  a  bodily  form, 
gave  rise  to  a  renewed  discussion  concerning  the  relation  of  the 
divine  to  the  human  nature.  John  Damascenus ,  in  particular,  en¬ 
deavored  to  reconcile  the  doctrine  of  two  natures  and  two  wills, 
with  the  unity  of  person,  by  regarding  the  divine  nature  as  that 
which  constitutes  the  person,  and  by  illustrating  the  mutual  rela¬ 
tion  in  which  the  two  natures  stand  to  each  other,  through  the  use 
of  the  phrases  rponog  avriSocecog  and  Trepix^pyoiq.1  The  Greek  theo- 
'  logians  in  general  adopted  his  views.2 — The  orthodox  doctrine  was. 
again  endangered  by  the  Adoption  interpretation  of  the  Sonship 
of  Christ,  advanced  by  several  Spanish  bishops,  especially  Elipan- 
dus  of  Toledo ,  and  Felix  of  Urgella ,  whom  Alcuin  and  others 
successfully  combated.  The  adoption  theory,  by  making  a  distinc¬ 
tion  between  an  adopted  son  and  a  natural  one,  leaned  toward  Nes- 
torianism,  though  its  peculiar  modifications  admitted  a  milder 
interpretation.3  Peter  Lombard’ s  view,  that  the  Son  of  God  did 
not  become  anything  by  the  assumption  of  human  nature  (because 
no  change  can  take  place  in  the  divine  nature),  was  branded  as  the 
heresy  of  Nihilianism ,  though  he  advanced  it  without  any  evil  in¬ 
tention,  and  was  falsely  interpreted  as  if  he  meant  that  Christ  had 
become  nothing .*  Albert  the  Great ,  and  Thomas  Aquinas ,  en¬ 

deavored  to  develop  the  christological  doctrines  of  the  church  in  a 
dialectic  method.5  But  alongside  of  this  dialectic  scholasticism, 


36 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


there  was  constantly  found,  as  its  supplement,  a  mystical,  and 
tnoral  tendency  of  a  practical  character.  Some  of  this  class  despised 
all  the  subtile  reasonings  of  the  schools,  while  others,  partly  adopt¬ 
ing  them,  regarded  Christ,  as  it  were,  as  the  divine  representative, 
or  the  restored  prototype,  of  humanity.*  On  the  contrary,  the  false 
mystics  transformed  the  historical  Christ  into  a  mere  ideal.7 

1  John  of  Damascus,  De  Fide  Orth.  iii.  c.  2,  ss.  p.  205  :  Ov  yap  7 :poi>- 

'noordoxj  naO *  eavrrjv  oapKt  7]vu)6t)  o  Oetog  Xoyog,  a/ IP . avrog  6 

Xoyog,  yevopevog  ry  oapid  vnooraotg  coots  apa  oap%,  dpa  Oeov  Xbyov  oap %, 
dpa  oap%  ep\pvxog,  XoytKi 'j  re  Kal  voepd *  6 to  ovk  dvOpcmov  drtoQeooOevra 
Xeyopev,  aXXa  Oeov  evavOponrjoavra.  "£2 v  yap  cfovcei  reXetog  Oeog,  yeyove 
(pvoet  reXetog  avOpconog  6  avrog,  k.  t.  X.  Concerning  the  terras  rponog 
avrtdooecog  (communicatio  idiomatum),  and  neptxd>Qr]otg  (immeatio),  see 
ch.  3  and  4,  p.  210:  K  al  ovrog  ear  tv  o  rponog  rrjg  dvrtdooeog,  etcarepag 
(pvaeag  dvrtdtdovorjg  ry  erepa  ra  tdta  6ta  rfjv  rrjg  vrtoordoeog  TaoTorrjTa, 
Kal  ri]V  eig  dXXr\Xa  avrcov  neptxboprjotv.  K ara  tovto  dvvapeOa  elnetv  rrepl 
XpLorov,  Ovrog  o  Oeog  rjp&v  eirl  rijg  yf/g  coptOr]  nal  rolg  avOpconotg  ovvave- 
Grpd<p7]‘  na\  o  dvOpconog  ovrog  dartorog  sort  Kal  dnaQijg  Kal  dneptypanrog. 
Compare  also  the  subsequent  chapters,  and  Dorner,  p.  106,  ss.  [and  259,  sq. 
Daur,  Dogmengesch.  211,  says  of  John  of  Damasc.,  that  in  his  view,  the  hu¬ 
man  nature  of  Christ  is  not  a  hypostasis  by  itself,  and  yet  it  is  not  without  a 
hypostasis  as  far  as  it  exists  in  the  hypostasis  of  the  Logos ;  it  is  human 
nature  only  as  it  exists  before  individual  and  personal  being.] 

2  Thus  Nicetas  Ckoniates  (Thesaurus,  c.  16,  quoted  by  Ullmann ,  p.  46), 
and  Nicolas  of  Methone  (Refut.  p.  155,  quoted  by  Ullmann ,  p.  84.)  The 
latter,  in  accordance  with  the  communicatio  idiomatum,  called  the  body  of 
Christ,  ocopa  Belov,  because,  by  means  of  the  rational  and  spiritual  soul,  it 
was  united  with  the  God  Logos,  so  as  to  form  one  person,  and  was  thus  deb 
lied  ( 0eovpyr]0ev .)  Compare  Refut.  p,  166  (  Ullmann ,  1.  c). — Among  the 
western  theologians  Anselm  adopted  these  definitions  in  his  Cur  Deus  Homo 
ii.  c.  7. 

3  On  the  progress  of  the  Adoption  controversy,  see  Walch ,  1.  c.  Ketzer- 
historic,  vol.  ix.  p.  667,  ss. ;  Gieseler,  Church  Ilist.  ii.  75,  ss ;  Neander 
(Torrey’s  transl.)  iii.  156,  ss. — On  the  questions,  whether  Adoptionism 
had  been  propounded  by  earlier  theologians?  whether  the  correct  reading 
of  Hilary  de  Trin.  ii.  29,  is  adoptatur  or  adoratur  ?  and  concerning  the 
Liturgia  Mozarabica,  see  Gieseler ,  1.  c.  On  the  earlier  controversy  of 
Elipandus  with  the  Spanish  bishop,  Megetius,  see  Baur ,  Lehre  d.  Dreieinigkt. 
ii.  131,  sq.  [Neander,  Hist.  Dogm.  442,  sq.,  traces  Adoptionism  to  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  writings  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  of  whom  Felix  was  a 
diligent  student.  This  is  confirmed,  adds  Jacobi  (in  a  note  to  Neander,  p. 
443),  by  the  Commentaries  on  Paul’s  Epistle,  published  by  Pitra,  in  his 
Spicileg.  Solesmense,  i.  170,  sq.,  as  a  work  of  Hilary,  but  really  written  by 
Theodore.  Rabanus  Maurus  seems  to  have  made  use  of  these  Commentaries. 
Baur,  Dogmengesch.  213,  says,  that  Adoptionism  was  the  logical  result  of 
the  Christological  maxim,  with  which  Alcuin  opposed  them:  viz., that  in  the 
assumption  of  flesh  by  deity,  “  persona  perit  hominis  non  natura.”]  The 


§  179.  Christology  in  Greek  Church. 


37 


notion  itself  is  most  distinctly  set  forth  in  the  Epist.  Episcop.  Hispan.  ad 
Episc.  Galliae  (in  Alcuini  Opp.  T.  ii.  p.  568),  quoted  by  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von 

Colin,  p.  81,  and  Gieseler.  Nos . confitemur  et  credimus,  Deuni  Dei 

filimn  ante  omnia  tempora  sine  initio  ex  Patre  genitum — non  adoptione  sed 
genere,  neque  gratia  sed  natura — pro  salute  vero  humani  generis  in  fine  tein- 
poris  ex  ilia  intima  et  ineffabili  Patris  substantia  egrediens,  et  a  Patre  non 
recedens,  hujus  mundi  infiina  petens,  ad  publicum  humani  generis  apparens, 
invisibilis  visibile  corpus  adsumens  de  virgine,  ineffabiliter  per  integra  vir- 
ginalia  matris  enixus  :  secundum  traditionem  patrum  confitemur  et  credimus, 
eum  factum  ex  muliere,  factum  sub  lege,  non  genere  esse  jilium  Dei*  sed 
adoptione ,  neque  natura  sed  gratia ,  id  ipsum  eodem  Domino  attestante,  qui 
ait :  “  Pater  major  me  est,”  etc. — Felix  (apud  Alcuin,  contra  Felic.  lib.  iv.  c. 
2) :  Secundo  autem  modo  nuncupative  Deus  dicitur,  etc.  “  This  union  of 
the  human  nature ,  which  is  mean  in  itself  with  the  divine ,  by  the  elevation 
of  the  former  in  consequence  of  a  divine  judgment ,  may  he  called  the  unio 
forensis ,  or  the  legal  union?  Dorner,  p.  112.  On  the  comparison  which 
may  be  drawn  between  the  said  elevation,  and  the  vioOeola  of  the  redeemed, 
see  Baumgarten-Crusius ,  p.  381.  Even  in  Spain,  the  priest  Beatus ,  of  the 
province  of  Libana,  and  bishop  Etherius ,  of  Othma,  pronounced  against  the 
Adoption  theory.  Felix  was  compelled  to  retract,  first  at  Ratisbon  (a.  d.  '792), 
and  afterwards  at  Rome;  the  Synod  of  Frankfort  (a.  d.  *794),  also  pronounced 
against  Adoptionism. — Respecting  Alcuini  Libellus  adversus  Hseresin  Felicis, 
ad  Abbates  et  Monachos  Gothise  missus  (T.  i.  p.  *759,  ss.),  and  his  Epistola 
ad  Felicem,  compare  Gieseler,  p.  77.  Alcuin’s  principal  argument  was,  that 
the  doctrine  in  question  would  destroy  the  unity  of  the  Son  of  God,  p.  763  : 
Si  igitur  Dominus  Christus  secundum  carnem,  sicut  quid  am  improba  fide 
garriunt,  adoptivus  est  Filius,  nequaquam  unus  est  Filius,  quia  nullatenus  pro- 
prius  Filius  et  adoptivus  Filius  unus  esse  potest  Filius,  quia  unus  verus  et 
alter  non  verus  esse  dignoscitur.  Quid  Dei  omnipotentiam  sub  nostram 
necessitatem  prava  temeritate  constringere  nitimur  ?  Non  est  nostrse  mor- 
talitatis  lege  ligatus;  omnia  enim  qusecumque  vult,  Dominus  facit  in  ccelo  et 
in  terra.  Si  autem  voluit  ex  virginali  ntero  proprium  sibi  creare  filium,  quis 
ausus  est  dicere,  cum  non  posse?  etc.  Comp.  p.  813.  At  the  Synod  of 
'  Aix-la-Chapelle  (a.  d.  799),  Felix  was  induced  to  yield  by  Alcuin,  while 
Elipandus  persisted.  Felix  died  A.  d.  818,  but  he  seems  before  his  death  to 
have  returned  to  his  former  opinions ;  see  Agobardi  Liber  adversus  Dogma 
Felicis  Episc.  Urgellensis  ad  Ludov.  Pium  Imp.:  comp.  Baur ,  ii.  133. — 
Folmar ,  canon  at  Traufenstein,  who  lived  in  the  12th  century,  was  charged 
(a.  d.  1160)  with  similar  Adoption  (Nestorian  ?)  errors;  see  Cramer ,  vii.  p. 
43.  And  Duns  Scotus  and  Durandus  a.  S.  Porciano  admitted  the  use  of 

*  No  son,  says  Felix  (ubi  supra)  can  have  two  natural  fathers.  Christ,  now,  in  his 
human  nature  is  the  son  of  David,  as  well  as  the  Son  of  God.  Consequently  he  can  be 
the  latter  only  by  adoption,  since  he  is  the  former  by  nature. — A  subordinate  question 
was  this — When  did  this  adoption  take  place  ?  already  at  birth,  or  first  at  baptism  ?  Ac¬ 
cording  to  Walch  (Ketzerhistorie,  ix.  574,  sq.),  Felix  maintained  the  latter:  see  in  reply 
Keander,  ubi  supra,  and  compare  Baur ,  Trinit.  ii.  139.  According  to  the  representation 
of  the  latter,  the  relation  of  adoption  was  fully  realized  only  in  the  resurrection  of 
Christ. 


38 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


tlie  phrase  films  adoptivus  under  certain  restrictions.  Walch ,  1.  c.  p.  253 ; 
Gieseler ,  ii.  80  ;  JBaur,  ii.  838. 

4  Concerning  the  heresy  of  Nihilianism  ( Lombardi  Sent.  Lib.  iii.  Dist. 
5-7,  his  language  is  not  very  definite),  see  Cramer ,  vol.  vii.  at  the  com¬ 
mencement ;  Dorner,  p.  121,  ss. ;  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  pp.  86,  87  ; 
and  Gieseler ,  Dogmengesch.  506,  sq.  In  compliance  with  an  order  issued  by 
Pope  Alexander  III.,  the  phrase,  “  Deus  non  factus  est  aliquid”  was  examined 
by  the  Synod  of  Tours  (a.  d.  1163),  and  rejected  :  Mansi ,  Tom.  xxii.  p.239. 
It  was  also  opposed  by  John  Cornubiensis ,  about  the  year  1175  ( Martene 
Thesaurus,  T.  v.  p.  1658,  ss.)*  But  it  was  principally  Walter  of  St.  Victor , 
who  made  it  appear  that  the  language  of  Peter  Lombard  implied  the  hereti¬ 
cal  notion :  Deus  est  nihil  secundum  quod  homo.  “  The  charge  of  Nihil¬ 
ianism  is  at  least  in  so  far  unjust ,  as  it  represents  the  denial  of  existence  in  a 
certain  individual  form ,  as  an  absolute  denial  of  existence.  At  all  events ,  the 
attacks  made  upon  Peter  Lombard  were  among  the  reasons  why  theologians 
were  henceforth  more  anxious  to  avoid  the  denial  of  the  separate  existence  of 
the  human  nature  of  Christ.  We  meet ,  at  least ,  in  the  writings  of  almost  all 
the  subsequent  scholastics ,  with  some  passage  or  other ,  in  which  they  urge ,  in 
opposition  to  the  phrase  1  non  aliquid ,’  used  by  Peter  Lombard ,  that  the  hu¬ 
man  nature  of  Christ  is  something  definite ,  and  distinct  from  all  others , 
but  yet  subsisting  only  in  the  divine  person  ;  hence  they  would  not  call  it 
either  individual ,  or  person?',  Dorner ,  pp.  122,  123.  Baur ,  ii.  563. 

6  Albertus  Magn.  Compend.  Theol.  Lib.  iv.  de  Incarnatione  Christi  c.  14, 
and  lib.  iii.  on  the  Sentences,  dist.  xiii.  (quoted  by  Dorner ,  pp.  124,  125). 
Thomas  Aquinas  P.  iii.  Qu.  8,  1,  etc.,  quoted  by  Dorner ,  p.  126,  ss.  Comp. 
Cramer,  v ii.  p.  571,  ss. :  Baur ,  ii.  787.  [Baur,  Dogmengesch.  259,  says, 
that  the  christological  theory  of  Aquinas  ran  out  dialectically  into  the  two 
negative  positions,  that  God  became  nothing  to  the  incarnation,  and  that  of 
man  as  a  real  subject  of  the  incarnation  nothing  could  be  said,  because  the 
subject  (person)  of  the  union  is  only  the  Son  of  God.  The  humanity  of 
Christ  is  only  a  human  nature,  and  not  a  human  personality ;  the  union 
kept  the  nature  from  becoming  a  person — otherwise  the  personality  of  the 
human  nature  must  have  been  destroyed  by  the  union.  On  the  christologi¬ 
cal  views  of  Anselm  and  Abelard ,  especially  in  relation  to  the  possibility  of 
Christ’s  sinning,  see  Neander ,  Hist.  Dogmas,  513,  sq.  Anselm  says,  “that 
Christ  could  have  sinned  if  he  had  so  willed,  but  this  possibility  is  only 
hypothetical Cur  Deus  Llomo,  ii.  10.  Abelard ,  on  Romans,  avers,  “that  if 
Christ  be  regarded  as  a  mere  man,  it  is  doubtful  whether  we  could  say  of 
him  nullo  modo  peccare  posse  ;  but  speaking  of  him  as  God  and  man,  only 
a  non  posse  peccare  is  to  be  admitted.”] 

6  Concerning  the  mystical  mode  of  interpretation  adopted  by  John 
Damascenus  and  others,  especially  by  his  supposed  disciple,  Theodore 
Abukara ,  s Dorner,  p.  115,  ss.  On  the  connection  between  the  scholastic 

*  John  of  Cornwall  appeals  among  other  things  to  the  usage  of  language.  When  we 
say,  e.  g.,  All  men  have  sinned — Christ  is  expressly  excepted.  Or,  again,  we  say,  Christ 
was  the  most  hdly  of  men ;  or,  we  count  the  twelve  apostles  and  their  Master  together, 
and  say,  there  are  thirteen  persons.  All  this  could  not  be,  if  Christ  were  not — aliquis 
homo.  See,  further,  in  Baur ,  ubi  supra. 


§  179.  Christology  in  Greek  Church. 


39 


definitions  and  the  mystical,  comp.  ibid. — John  Scotus  Erigena  considers  the 
historical  Christ  as  one  in  whom  the  human  race  is  ideally  represented ;  and 
at  the  same  time  he  always  strives  to  preserve  Christ’s  specific  dignity.  Thus 
in  De  Divis.  Nat.  ii.  13  :  Humano  intellects,  quem  Christus  assumsit,  omnes 
intellectuals  essentise  inseparabiliter  adhserent.  Nonne  plane  vides,  omnem 
creaturam,  intelligibiles  dico  sensibilesque  mediasque  naturas,  in  Christo 
adunatam.  Comp.  v.  25,  p.  252  :  Quanquam  enim  totam  humanam  naturam, 
quam  totam  accepit,  totam  in  se  ipso  et  in  toto  humano  genere  totam  sal- 
vavit,  quosdam  quidem  in  pristinum  naturae  statum  restituens,  quosdam  vero 
per  excellentiam  ultra  naturam  deificans ;  in  nullo  tamen  nisi  in  ipso  solo 
humanitas  deitati  in  unitatem  substantiae  adunata  est,  et  in  ipsam  deitatem 
mutata  omnia  transcendit.  Hoc  enim  proprium  caput  Ecclesiae  sibi  ipsi 
reservavit,  ut  non  solum  ejus  humanitas  particeps  deitatis,  verum  etiam  ipsa 
deitas,  postquam  ascendit  ad  Patrem,  fieret ;  in  quam  altitudinem  nullus 
praeter  ipsum  ascendit  nec  ascensurus  est.  [Comp.  ChristlieVs  John  Scotus 
Erigena,  1860,  pp.  330-360.  Erigena  on  the  exinanitio  espoused  the  view 
held  afterwards  by  the  Calvinists  in  distinction  from  the  Lutherans,  p.  335. 
He  makes  the  incarnation  to  be  necessary,  v.  25  :  Si  Dei  sapientia  in  effeetus 
causarum,  quae  in  ea  aeternaliter  vivunt,  non  descenderet ,  causarum  ratio 
periret :  pereuntibus  enim  causarum  eftectibus  nulla  causa  remaneret,  etc. 
Notwithstanding  Erigena’s  strong  assertion  about  the  historical  Christ,  the 
drift  of  his  doctrine  is  to  give  to  the  incarnation  a  merely  ideal,  or  symboli¬ 
cal  character.  He  anticipates  Schelling  and  Hegel  in  a  striking  manner ; 
see  Christlier ,  p.  354,  sg.J — The  scholastics  in  general  recognized  something 
universal  in  Christ,  as  the  prototype  of  the  race,  without,  however,  impair¬ 
ing  his  historical  individuality ;  see  Dorner ,  p.  141. — This  was  still  more  the 
case  with  the  mystics.  Some  of  them,  e.  gn  Geroch ,  prebendary  of  Reichers- 
lerg ,  protested  as  early  as  the  time  of  the  rise  of  Scholasticism,  against  the 
refining  and  hair-splitting  tendency  which  became  prevalent  in  regard  to 
christology  (especially  in  opposition  to  Folmar) ;  see  Cramer ,  1.  c.  p.  43-78. 
The  disciples  of  the  school  of  St.  Victor  looked  with  an  indifferent  eye  upon 
the  subtler  development  of  this  dogma  (Dorner ,  p.  142,  note.)  All  the 
mystics  urged  that  Christ  is  quickened  in  us.  Thus  Ruysbroek  said,  “  Christ 
had  his  divinity  and  humanity  by  nature ;  but  we  have  it  when  we  are 
united  to  him  in  love  by  grace Comp.  Engelhard t's  Monograph,  p.  157, 
and  the  entire  section,  p.  177-179.  Tauter ,  Predigten,  vol.  i.  p.  55,  ex¬ 
pressed  himself  as  follows  : — “We  hold  that  we  are  susceptible  of  blessed¬ 
ness  in  the  same  manner  in  which  he  is  susceptible,  and  that  we  receive  here 
on  earth  a  foretaste  of  that  eternal  blessedness  which  we  shall  enjoy  here¬ 
after.  Since  even  the  meanest  powers  and  bodily  senses  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  were  so  united  with  his  divine  nature,  that  we  may  say,  God  saw,  God 
heard,  God  suffered,  so  we,  too,  enjoy  the  advantage,  in  consequence  of  our 
union  with  him,  that  all  our  works  may  become  divine.  Further,  human  na¬ 
ture  being  united  with  the  divine  person,  and  with  the  angels,  all  men  have 
more  followship  with  him  than  other  creatures,  inasmuch  as  they  are  the 

members  of  his  body,  and  are  influenced  by  him  as  by  their  head,  etc . 

Not  many  sons!  You  may  and  ought  to  differ  [from  each  other]  according 
to  your  natural  birth,  but  in  the  eternal  birth  there  can  be  only  one  Son, 


40 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


since  in  God  there  exists  only  one  natural  origin,  on  which  account  there  can  be 
only  one  natural  emanation  of  the  Son,  not  two.  Therefore ,  if  you  would 
be  one  son  with  Christ ,  you  must  be  an  eternal  outflowing  together  with  the 
eternal  word.  As  truly  as  God  has  become  man,  so  truly  man  has  become 
God  by  grace ;  and  thus  human  nature  is  changed  into  what  it  has  become, 
viz.,  into  the  divine  image,  which  is  consequently  an  image  of  the  Father,” 
etc.  Compare  also  the  sermon  on  Christmas-day,  vol.  i.  p.  89,  and  other 
passages. — Deutsche  Theologie,  oh.  22  :  “Where  God  and  man  are  so  united, 
that  we  may  say  in  truth,  and  truth  itself  must  confess,  that  there  is  one  who 
is  verily  perfect  God,  and  verily  perfect  man,  and  where  man  is  nevertheless 
so  devoted  to  God,  that  God  is  there  man  himself,  and  that  he  acts  and  suf¬ 
fers  entirely  without  any  self-hood,  or  for  self,  or  for  self-having  [Germ,  ohne 
alles  Ich,  Mir  und  Mein],  (i.  e .,  without  any  self-will,  self-love  and  selfish¬ 
ness)  :  behold,  there  is  verily  Christ ,  and  no  where  elseT  Comp.  cli.  24  and 
ch.  43 :  “  Where  the  life  of  Christ  is ,  there  is  Christ  himself  and  where  his 
life  is  not,  there  he  is  not.”* — The  language  of  W essel  is.  simple  and  digni¬ 
fied  ;  De  Causa  Incarnat.  c.  7,  p.  427  (quoted  by  Ullmann ,  p.  267)  :  “  Every 
noble  soul  hath  something  divine  in  itself,  which  it  loves  to  communicate. 
The  more  excellent  it  is,  the  more  it  endeavors  to  imitate  the  Divine  Being. 
Accordingly,  that  holy  and  divinely  beloved  soul  (i.  e.  Christ),  resembling 
God  more  than  any  other  creature,  gave  itself  wholly  up  for  the  brethren,  as 
it  saw  God  doing  the  same  with  regard  to  itself.”  Comp.  cap.  16,  p.  450, 
and  De  Magnit.  Passionis  c.  82,  p.  627  :  Qui  non  ab  hoc  exemplari  trahitur, 
non  est.  On  the  human  development  of  the  Redeemer,  see  ibid.  c.  17,  p. 
486,  quoted  by  Ullmann ,  p.  259. 

7  Thus  the  Beghards :  Dicunt,  se  credere,  quod  quilibet  homo  perfectus 
sit  Christus  per  naturam.  ( Moslieim ,  p.  256,  after  the  letter  of  the  bishop 
of  Strasbourg.)  According  to  Baur  (Gesch.  d.  Trinit.  ii.  310,  comp,  how¬ 
ever,  note  to  above),  the  church  doctrine  as  expounded  by  John  Scotus 
Erigena,  was  nothing  more  than  that  of  the  immanence  of  God  in  the 
world,  which  appeared  in  man  in  the  form  of  an  actual,  concrete  self-con¬ 
sciousness.  [Comp,  also  Cliristlier ,  ubi  supra.] 

The  partus  virgineus  was  one  of  those  subjects  which  greatly  occupied  the  ingenuity  of 
the  scholastics.  It  was  at  the  foundation  of  the  controversy  between  Paschasius  liadbert 
and  Patramn,  about  the  year  850,  on  the  question,  whether  Mary  had  given  birth  to  Christ 
utero  clauso  ?  to  which  the  former  (after  Jerome)  replied  in  the  affirmative,  the  latter  (as 
Ilelvidius  had  done)  in  the  negative.  For  further  details,  see  Munscher,  ed.  by  von  Colin, 
pp.  85  and  86 ;  and  Watch ,  C.  G.  F.  Historia  Controversy©  sseculi  IX.  de  Partu  B.  Yirginis. 
Gott.  1758.  4°.  Anselm  sought  to  prove  in  a  very  ingenious  way,  that  the  birth  of  the 
Yirgin  was  necessary  -in  the  circle  of  divine  possibibilities,  Cur  Deus  Homo,  ii.  8  :  Quatuor 
modis  potest  Deus  facere  hominem ;  videlicet  aut  de  viro  et  de  femina,  sicut  assiduus 
usus  monstrat ;  aut  nec  de  viro  nec  de  femina,  sicut  creavit  Adam ;  aut  de  viro  sine 
femina,  sicut  fecit  Evam;  aut  de  femina  sine  viro,  quod  nondum  fecit.  Ut  igitur  hunc 
quoque  modum  probet  suae  subjacere  potestati,  et  ad  hoc  ipsum  opus  dilatum  esse,  nihil 
convenientius,'  quam  ut  de  femina  sine  viro  assumat  ilium  hominem,  quem  quaerimus. 
Utrum  autem  de  virgine  aut  de  non  virgine  dignius  hoc  fiat,  non  est  opus  disputare,  sed 
sine  omni  dubitatione  asserendum  est,  quia  de  virgine  hominem  nasci  oportet. — In  the 

*  Lest  this  passage  might  be  misinterpreted,  so  as  to  refer  to  a  mere  ideal  Christ, 
comp,  what  is  said  c.  52 :  “  All  that  is  hitherto  written,  Christ  taught  by  a  long  life,  which 
lasted  thirty-three  years  and  six  months,”  etc. 


§  180.  Redemption  and  Atonement. 


41 


writings  of  Robert  Pulleyn,  we  meet  with  absurd  questions  respecting  the  exact  moment 
at  which,  and  the  manner  in  which,  the  union  of  the  divine  nature  of  the  Son  with  the 
human  assumed  in  the  womb  of  Mary,  had  taken  place  ( Cramer ,  vi.  p.  484,  ss.) 

The  fondness  of  the  scholastics  for  starting  all  sorts  of  questions,  led  them  also  to  in¬ 
quire,  whether  the  union  between  the  divine  and  human  natures  of  Christ  continued  to 
exist  after  his  death  (the  separation  of  the  body  from  the  soul.)  Pulleyn  replied  in  the. 
affirmative.  He  supposed  that  only  Christ’s  body  had  died,  but  not  the  whole  man  Christ ; 
see  Cramer ,  vi.  pp.  487,  488.  A  controversy  was  also  carried  on  between  the  Francis¬ 
cans  and  Dominicans  respecting  the  question,  whether  the  blood  shed  on  the  cross  was 
also  separated  from  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  ?  A  violent  discussion  took  place  in  Rome 
at  Christmas,  1462.  The  Dominicans  took  the  affirmative,  the  Franciscans  the  negative 
side  of  the  question.  At  last  Pope  Pius  II.  prohibited  the  progress  of  the  controversy 

by  a  bull,  issued  A.  D.  1464;  see  Gobellin,  Comment.  Pii  II.  Rom.  1584,  p.  511 . 

Fleury,  Hist,  ecclesiast.  xxiii.  p.  167,  ss. 


§  180. 

REDEMPTION  AND  ATONEMENT. 


*  Baur,  G-eschichte  der  Yersonungslehre,  p.  118,  ss.  Seisen,  Nicolaus  Methonensis,  An- 
selmus  Cantuariensis,  Hugo  Grotius,  quod  ad  Satisfactionis  Doctrinam  a  singulis  ex- 
cogitatum  inter  se  comparati.  Heidelberg,  1838-40.  [Thomasius,  Christologie,  iii. 
1.  Comp.  §  134.  Anselm's  Cur  Deus  Homo,  transl.  by  Vose,  in  Bib.  Sacra,  1854-5.] 


The  mythical  notion,  developed  in  the  preceding  period,  of  a  legal 
transaction  with  the  devil,  and  the  deception  practised  upon  him  on 
the  part  of  God  and  Christ,  was  also  adopted  by  some  theologians 
of  the  present  period,  e.  g.,  John  Damascenus .x  But  it  soon  gave 
way,  or  at  least  became  subordinate  to,  another  theological  mode 
of  stating  the  doctrine,  viz.,  that  the  fact  of  redemption  was  deduci- 
ble  with  logical  necessity  from  certain  divine  and  human  relations. 
We  find  the  transition  to  this  in  the  Greek  church  in  the  writings 
of  Nicolas  of  Methone ,2  who  arrived  at  similar  conclusions  with 
Anselm,  though  independently  of  him.  In  the  Western  church, 
Anselm  of  Canterbury  established  his  theory  with  an  amount  of  in¬ 
genuity,  and  a  completeness  of  reasoning,  hitherto  unattained.  It 
is  in  substance  as  follows  :  In  order  to  restore  the  honor  of  which 
God  was  deprived  by  sin,  it  was  necessary  that  God  should  be¬ 
come  man  ;  that,  by  voluntary  submission  to  the  penalty  of  death, 
he  might  thus,  as  God-man,  cancel  the  debt,  which,  beside  him,  no 
other  being,  whether  a  heavenly  one  or  an  earthly  one,  could  have 
paid.  And  he  pot  only  satisfied  the  requirements  of  divine  justice, 
but,  by  so  doing,  of  his  own  free  will,  he  did  more  than  was  needed, 
and  was  rewarded  by  obtaining  the  deliverance  of  man  from  the 
penalty  pronounced  upon  him.  Thus  the  apparent  contradiction 
between  divine  love  on  the  one  hand,  and  divine  justice  and  benevo¬ 
lence  on  the  other,  was  adjusted. 


Be  Fide  Orth.  iii.  1. :  A vrog  yap  b  drjiuovpyug  re  nal  nvpioq  rijv  vnep 


42 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


tov  oIkeiov  tt XaapaTog  avadexerai  naXgv,  Kal  spy  gj  didaoKaXog  ylverai. 
Kai  eTTEidg  OeorrjTog  eXiridi  o  exGpog  dsXEa^Ei  rbv  dvOpojnov ,  oapKog  rrpo- 
(3X?'jpart  deXed^ETCU  Kal  deiKvvrai  apa  ro  ayaOov  Kal  ro  ocxpov,  to  diKalov 
re  Kal  to  dwarov  tov  Oeov’  to  pev  ayaOov ,  oti  ov  rrapelde  tov  oIkelov 
nXaapaTog  ttjv  aoOevsiav ,  aXXy  eoirXayxvlaOg  err’  avTcp  tteoovti,  Kal  xe^Pa 
gj pe%e’  to  de  diKaiov ,  oti  avOpdnov  fjTTgOevTog  ovx  ETepov  ttoleX  viK,r\oai 
tov  Tvyavvov ,  ovde  (3ia  e^apna^ei  tov  OavaTov  tov  dvOpamov ,  aXX’  ov 
rraXai  did  Tag  apapTiag  KaTadovXovTai  o  OavaTog ,  tovtov  o  ayaGog  Kal 
diKaiog  ViKTjTTjv  rraXiv  tcettoltjke,  Kal  tcj  opofcp  tov  opoiov  aveocjoaTO ,  onep 
dnopov  7]v  to  de  ootpov ,  oti  evpe  tov  dnopov  Xvoiv  EvnpenEOTaT7]v.  He 
opposed,  indeed,  the  notion  (of  Gregory  of  Nyssa),  that  the  devil  had  re^ 
eeived  the  ransom,  iii.  27  :  Mg  yap  y evolto  tG>  TvpavvG)  to  tov  deononov 
TTpooEVExGfjvai  alpa,  but  used  very  strange  language  in  the  subsequent  part 
of  the  chapter :  Ylpbosioi  Totyapovv  o  OavaTog  Kal  KaTamojv  to  odpaTog 
deXeap  tgj  Trjg  OsoTrjTog  ayKiOTpcp  nepinelpETai,  Kal  avapapTrjTOv  Kal 
^Gjonoiov  yevoapevog  ocjpaTog  dia<pOe[pETai  Kal  navTag  dvayEi ,  ovg  naXai 


KaTETTLEV 

3 


Anecd.  i.  p.  25,  ms.  fob  148  b.,  (quoted  by  Seisen,  p.  i.);  ibid.,  p.  30,  ss. 
fob  150  b.,  (quoted  by  Seisen,  p.  2)  :  TH>  yap  OavaTGj  vnevOvvov  to  ndv  gpdjv 
yevog’  ndvreg  yap  rjpapTov ,  KEVTpov  de  tov  OavaTov  eotIv  g  apapTia 
(1  Cor.  xv.  56),  dl  gg  Tpcboag  gpag  o  OavaTog  KaTafieftXgKE,  Kal  dXXojg  ovk 
gv  tgjv  deopCjv  T7]g  dovXelag  anaXXaygvai  Tovg  dopaTi  XgipOevTag,  g  did 
OavaTov  (Rom.  v.  14.)  Ta  yap  XvTpa  ev  r g  aipeoei  Kefaai  tgjv  kotexovt 
tgjv.  Ovk  gv  ovv  o  dvvapevog  vneXOelv  to  dpapa  Kal  egayopaoai  to  yevog , 
ovk  Tjv  ovdelg  tgjv  tov  yevovg  eXevOepog’  poyig  de  Tgg  idiag  evoxgg  eXevOe- 
povTaL  Tig,  og  eavTOv  anoOvgoKGJV  ov  dvvapevog  ovveXevOepGJoai  eva  yovv 
eavTU ).  E l  de  ovdeva ,  Tig  gv  dvvaTog ,  oXov  Koopov  dizaXXd^ai  dovXetag  ; 
el  yap  Kal  d%i6xp£(vg  tjv  rrpog  T7jv  id'iav  eXevGepiav  EKaoTog’  aXXy  ovv  ovk 
tjv  npenov ,  navTag  anodavEiv ,  ovde  vtto  tt\v  tov  OavaTov  e^ovoiav  KaTa- 
peivai.  T ivog  ovv  rjv  to  KaTopdcopa ;  drjXov  otl  avapapTr/Tov  Tivog.  T ig 
de  tgjv  navTiov  dvapapTTjTog  rj  povog  b  Oeog  ;  ei reidrj  tolvvv  Kal  Oeov  to 
epyov  tjv  Kal  OavaTov  Kal  t&v  7]yrjoapevo)v  tov  OavaTov  rraO&v 

ddvvaTOV  rjv  TeXeoG7]vai7  b  Oeog  de  ixaOCbv  Kal  OavaTov  eotIv  arcapadeKTog, 
TrpooeXa[3e  (pvoiv  naO&v  Kal  OavaTov  deKTLKrjv,  bpoovaiav  Tjfilv  vnapxovoav 
KaTa  navTa  Kal  arcapaXXaKTCjg  exovoav  rrpog  f]pag,  opov  Xaf3l]V  didovg  tg3 
npoonaXaiovTi  OavaTcp  KaTa  oapKa ,  Kal  di’  avTTjg  T7jg  vTZOKEipevjjg  avTcp 
(pvoEGjg  KaTayuvLovpevog  avTov ,  Iva  pr/TE  avTog  x(*)Pav  GX°^rl  Xeyeiv ,  ovx 
biro  av0pd)7TOV7  aXX *  vno  Oeov  TjTTTjoOai,  pr/TE  pl]v  7]pe(g  KaTapaXaKi^oipeOa 
npog  Tovg  ay&vag’  Kaipov  KaXovvTog  exovTeg  rrapadeiypa  tt]v  opo(pv7j  Kal 
opoovoiov  oapKa ,  ev  q  KaTEKpidrj  7]  apapTia ,  x(*)Pav  ovdoXcog  evpovoa  ev 

avTijj.  . . Ov  yap  paT7]V  Ti  yeyove  tgjv  irepl  to  Tipiov  avTov  rcadog 

ovpftefirjKbTGJV,  aXXa  Xoyo)  Tivl  KpeiTTOVi  Kal  dvayKalcp ,  rraoav  Xbyajv 
dvvapiv  vTrepfidXXovTL.  Comp.  Refut.  p.  155,  ss.,  quoted  by  Seisen ,  p.  4, 
and  Ullmann ,  p,  90,  ss.  “  He  agreed  (with  Anselm)  'principally  in  endea¬ 
voring  to  .demonstrate  .that  the  Redeemer  must  needs  have  been  God  and  Man , 
but  differed  from  him  in  this ,  that  Anselm  referred  the  necessity  of  the 
death  of  Jems  to  the  divine  holiness ,  while  Nicolas  brought  it  into  connection 
with  the  dominion  of  Satan  over  sinful  men.”  Ullmann,  p.  94. 


§  180.  Atonement  and  Redemption. 


43 


8  “ The  relation  in  which  Anselm's  theory  of  satisfaction  stands  to  the 
opinions  which  had  generally  obtained  previous  to  his  time,  is  chiefly  expressed 
in  his  decided  opposition  to  the  principle  on  which  those  views  were  founded , 
in  relation  to  the  devil Baur ,  Yersohnungslehre,  p.  155.  Cur  Deus  Homo 

i.  7.  and  ii.  19:  Diabolo  nec  Deus  aliquid  debebat  nisi  pcenam,  nee  homo, 
nisi  vicem,  ut  ab  illo  victus  ilium  revinceret ;  sed  quidquid  ab  illo  exige- 
batur,  hoc  Deo  debebat,  non  diabolo.  Comp.  Dial,  de  Yerit.  c.  8  (in  Ilasse, 

ii.  86)  :  Dominus  Jesus,  quia  solus  innocens  erat,  non  debuit  mortem  pati, 
quia  ipse  sapienter  et  benigne  et  utiliter  voluit  earn  sufferre.  The  theory  of 
Anselm  is  rather  established  upon  the  idea  of  sin  (comp.  §  176,  note  4.)  It 
is  the  duty  of  man  to  honor  God ;  by  sin  he  has  deprived  him  of  the  honor 
due  to  him,  and  is  obliged  to  mate  retribution  for  it  in  a  striking  manner. 
So  in  i.  11:  Ilunc  honorem  debitum  qui  Deo  non  reddit,  aufert  Deo  quod 
suum  est,  et  Deum  exhonorat,  et  hoc  est  peccare.  Quamdiu  autem  non  sol¬ 
vit,  quod  rapuit,  manet  in  culpa ;  nec  sufficit  solummodo  reddere,  quod  ab- 
latum  est,  sed  pro  contumelia  illata  plus  debet  reddere,  quam  ab'stulit. 
Com.  also  c.  13  :  Necesse  est  ergo,  ut  aut  ablatus  honor  solvatur,  aut  poena 
sequatur,  alioquin  aut  sibi  ipsi  Deus  Justus  non  erit,  aut  ad  utrumque  impo- 
tens  erit,  quod  nefas  est  vel  cogitare.  It  may  be  true  that  God  can  not, 
properly  speaking  (i.  e.,  objectively),  be  deprived  'of  his  honor,  but  he  must 
insist  upon  its  demands,  for  the  sake  of  his  creatures  ;  the  order  and  har¬ 
mony  of  the  universe  require  it.  i.  c.  14  :  Deum  impossibile  est  honorem 
suum  perdere. ...  Cap.  15:  Dei  honori  nequit  aliquid,  quantum  ad  ilium 
pertinet,  addi  vel  minui.  Idem  namque  ipse  sibi  honor  est  incorruptibilis  et 
nullo  modo  mutabilis.  Yerum  quando  unaquseque  creatura  suum  et  quasi 
sibi  prseceptum  ordinem  sive  naturaliter  sive  rationabiliter  servat,  Deo  obe- 
dire  et  eum  dicitur  honorare ;  et  hoc  maxime  rationalis  natura,  cui  datum 
est  intelligere  quid  debeat.  Quae  cum  vult  quod  debet,  Deum  honorat ;  non 
quia  illi  aliquid  confert,  sed  quia  sponte  se  ejus  voluntati  et  dispositioni  sub- 
dit,  et  in  rerum  universitate  ordinem  suum  et  ejusdem  universitatis  pulchri- 
tudinem,  quantum  in  ipsa  est,  servat.  Cum  vero  non  vult  quod  debet,  Deum, 
quantum  ad  illam  pertinet,  inhonorat,  quoniam  non  subdit  se  sponte  illius 
dispositioni,  et  universitatis  ordinem  et  pulchritudinem,  quantum  in  se  est, 
perturbat,  licet  potestatem  aut  dignitatem  Dei  nullatenus  laedat  aut  decoloret. 
(With  this  the  idea  is  connected,  that  the  deficiency  in  the  hierarchia  coeles- 
tis,  occasioned  by  the  fall  of  the  angels,  was  made  up  by  the  creation  of  man. 

*  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that,  as  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  were  gradually  developed 
in  the  lapse  of  ages,  the  kingdom  of  Satan  was  more  and  more  put  into  the  background, 
as  the  shadows  disappear  before  the  light.  During  the  first  period,  up  to  the  complete 
overthrow  of  Manicheism,  the  demons  occupied  an  important  place  in  the  doctrines 
respecting  God  and  the  government  of  the  world,  as  well  as  in  anthropology,  until  Au¬ 
gustine  (in  the  second  period)  showed  that  the  origin  of  sin  is  to  be  found  in  a  profounder 
view  of  human  nature.  And  lastly,  in  the  course  of  the  present  period,  the  connection 
between  the  doctrines  of  Christology  and  Soteriology  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  doctrine 
of  demoniacal  agency  on  the  other,  being  dissolved,  the  latter  is  pushed  back  to  escha- 
tology,  where  the  devil  finds  his  proper  place  in  hell.  Still  farther,  the  relation  of  the 
devil  to  the  work  of  redemption  was  still  so  prominent  even  in  the  time  of  Anselm,  that 
Abelard  was  accused  of  heresy  for  contesting  the  right  of  the  devil  to  man ;  see  Bern- 
hard.  Epist,  cxc.  5,  in  Mabillon,  Tom.  i.  p.  650  sq.  (Comp.  Basse's  Anselm,  ii  493). 


44 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


c.  16.  (Comp,  above  §  1 72,  Note  5.)  From  the  reasons  referred  to,  it 
would  be  unworthy  of  God  to  pardon  the  sinner,  merely  by  making  use  of 
his  supreme  authority,  in  the  way  of  mercy  ;  (i.  c.  6),  and  c.  12  :  Non  decet 

Deum  peccatum  sic  inpunitum  dimittere . In  that  case,  injustice  would 

be  more  privileged  than  justice.  (Liberior  est  injustitia,  si  sola  misericordia 
dimittitur,  quam  justitia.)  Comp.  c.  19.  But  man  can  not  make  satisfac¬ 
tion,  inasmuch  as  he  is  corrupt  by  original  sin  (i.  c.  23  :  quia  peccator  pec- 
catorem  justificare  nequit)  :  nevertheless  it  was  necessary  that  satisfaction 
should  be  given  by  a  human  being,  i.  c.  3  :  Oportebat  namque  ut  sicut  per 
hominis  inobedientiam  mors  in  humanum  genus  intraverat,  ita  per  hominis 
obedientiam  vita  restitueretur,  et  quemadmodum  peccatum,  quod  fuit  causa 
nostrse  damnationis,  initium  habuit  a  femina,  sic  nostras  justitise  et  salutis 
auctor  nasceretur  de  femina,  et  ut  diabolus,  qui  per  gustum  ligni,  quern  per- 
suasit,  hominem  vicerat,  ita  per  passionem  ligni,  quam  intulit,  ab  homine 
vinceretur.  But  could  not  God  have  created  a  sinless  man  ?  Be  it  so  ;  but 
then  the  redeemed  would  have  come  under  the  dominion  of  him  who  had 
redeemed  them,  i.  e.,  under  the  dominion  of  a  man,  who  would  himself  be 
nothing  but  a  servant  of  God,  to  whom  angels  would  not  render  obedience, 
(i.  c.  5.)  And  besides,  man  himself  owes  obedience  to  God,  i.  c.  20  :  In 
obedientia  vero  quid  das  Deo,  quod  non  debes,  cui  jubenti  totum,  quod  es 

et  quod  habes  et  quod  potes,  debes? . Si  me  ipsum  et  quidquid  possum, 

etiam  quando  non  pecco,  illi  debeo,  ne  peccem,  nihil  habeo,  quod  pro  peccato 
illi  reddam. — Nor  could  any  higher  being  ( e .  g.  an  angel)  take  upon  him  the 
work  of  redemption,  for  so  much  is  sure :  Ilium,  qui  de  suo  poterit  Deo  dare 
aliquid,  quod  superet  omne  quod  sub  Deo  est,  majorem  esse  necesse  est, 

quam  omne  quod  non  est  Deus . Nihil  autem  est  supra  omne  quod  Deus 

non  est,  nisi  Deus . Non  ergo  potest  hanc  satisfactionem  facere  nisi 

Deus,  (ii.  c.  6.)  If  therefore  none  can  make  satisfaction  but  God  himself, 
and  if  it  be  nevertheless  necessary  that  a  man  should  make  it,  nothing  re¬ 
mains  but  that — the  Godman  should  undertake  it ;  ibid. :  Si  ergo,  sicut 
constat,  necesse  est,  ut  de  hominibus  perficiatur  ilia  superna  civitas,  nec  hoc 
esse  valet  nisi  fiat  prsedicta  satisfactio,  quam  nec  potest  facere  nisi  Deus,  nec 
debet  nisi  homo :  necesse  est,  ut  earn  faciat  Deus  homo.  It  is,  moreover, 
necessary  that  the  Godman  should  be  of  the  race  of  Adam,  and  born  of  a 
virgin  (c.  8.  comp.  §  179);  and  among  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity, 
it  appears  most  seemly  that  the  Son  should  assume  humanity  (ii.  c.  9.  comp, 
g  170,  Note  6).  In  order  to  make  satisfaction  for  man,  he  had  to  give 
something  to  God  which  he  did  not  owe  to  him,  but  which,  at  the  same 
time,  was  of  more  value  than  all  that  is  under  God.  Concerning  obedience, 
he  owed  it  to  God,  like  every  other  rational  creature ;  but  he  was  not  obliged 
to  die  (c.  10,  11.)  Nevertheless,  he  was  willing  to  lay  down  his  life  of  his 
own  accord,  ibid. :  Video,  hominem  ilium  plane,  quern  quserimus,  talem  esse 
oportere,  qui  nec  ex  necessitate  moriatur,  quoniam  erit  omnipotens,  nec  ex 
debito,  quia  nunquam  peccator  erit ;  et  mori  possit  ex  libera  voluntate  quia 
necessarium  erit;  for  death  is  the  greatest  sacrifice  which  man  can  offer, 
ibid.  :  Nihil  asperius,  aut  difficilius  potest  homo  ad  honorem  Dei  sponte  et 
non  ex  debito  pati,  quam  mortem ;  et  nullatenus  se  ipsum  potest  homo  magis 


§  180.  Atonement  and  Eedemption. 


45 


dare  Deo,  quam  cum  se  morti  tradit  ad  honorem  illius.*  But  it  was  be¬ 
cause  it  was  voluntary,  that  the  act  had  an  infinite  value  ;  for  his  death 
outweighs  all  sins,  however  numerous  or  great,  c.  14.  A :  Cogita  etiam,  quia 
peccata  tantum  sunt  odibilia,  quantum  sunt  mala,  et  vita  ista  tantum  ainabi- 
lis  est,  quantum  est  bona.  Unde  sequitur,  quia  vita  ista  plus  est  amabilis, 
.quam  sint  peccata  odibilia.  B.  Non  possum  hoc  non  intelligere.  A.  Pu- 
tasne  tantum  bonum  tarn  amabile  posse  sufficere  ad  solvendum,  quod  debetur 
pro  peccatis  totius  mundi?  B.  Imo  plus  potest  in  infinitum.  (On  this 
account  Christ’s  atonement  has  also  a  reacting  influence  upon  our  first 
parents,  c.  16,  and  upon  Mary  herself,  ibid,  and  c.  17,  comp.  §  178,  note  2.) 
But  the  offering,  thus  voluntarily  made,  could  not  but  be  recompensed.  As 
the  Son,  however,  already  possessed  what  the  Father  possesses,  the  reward 
due  to  him  must  accrue  to  the  advantage  of  others,  viz.  men  (ii.  19.)  Thus 
the  love  and  the  justice  of  God  may  be  reconciled  with  each  other,  c.  20: 
Misericordiam  vero  Dei,  quae  tibi  perire  videbatur,  cum  justitiam  Dei  et 
peccatum  hominis  considerabamus,  tarn  magnam  tamque  concordem  justitiae 
invenimus,  ut  nec  major  nec  justior  cogitari  possit.  Nempe  quid  misericoi> 
dius  intelligi  valet,  quam  cum  peccatori  tormentis  aeternis  damnato,  et  unde 
se  redimat  non  habenti,  Deus  pater  dicit :  Accipe  Unigenitum  meum,  et  da 

pro  te  ;  et  ipse  Filius  :  Tolle  me,  et  redime  te  ? . Quid  etiam  justius,  quam 

ut  ille,  cui  datur  pretium  majus  omni  debito,  si  debito  datur  affectu,  dimittat 
omne  debitum  ?  And  lastly,  we  should  not  pass  by  his  caution  at  the  close 
of  his  treatise  (c.  22.) :  Si  quid  diximus,  quod  corrigendum  sit,  non  renuo 
correctionem,  si  rationabiliter  sit.  Si  autem  testimonio  veritatis  roboratur, 
quod  nos  rationabiliter  invenisse  existimamus,  Deo,  non  nobis  attribuere  debe- 
mus,  qui  est  benedictus  in  ssecula.  Amen.  [On  Anselm’s  view  compare 
Neander ,  Hist.  Dogm.  514  sq.,  viz.  he  affirms  the  necessity  of  an  active 
(rather  than  passive)  vicarious  sacrifice.] 

Notwithstanding  all  its  appearance  of  logical  consequence,  the  theory  of  Anselm,  as 
has  been  remarked,  is  open  to  the  charge  of  an  internal  contradiction.  For  though  An¬ 
selm  himself  admitted,  that  God  could  not  be  deprived  of  his  honor  objectively,  he  never¬ 
theless  founded  his  argument  upon  this  objective  fact,  and  made  it  necessary  that,  after 
all,  the  love  and  compassion  of  God  should  come  in,  accept  the  satisfaction  voluntarily 
made  by  another  and  an  innocent  being,  and  for  his  sake  remit  the  punishment  due  to 
actual  transgressors,  who,  on  their  part  could  not  retrieve  their  loss.  Comp.  Baur , 
p.  168-1 19.  Schweizer,  too,  in  his  Glaubensl.  d.  reformirten  Kirche,  ii.  391,  says,  that 
the  theory  of  Anselm  hovers  between  the  foedus  operum  and  the  fcedus  gratise.  To  this 
it  has  been  replied,  that  Anselm  clearly  distinguishes  between  the  immanent  and  the 
transeunt  (declarative)  honor  of  God,  and  that  his  argument  starts  with  this  ;  see  Basse's 
Anselm,  ii.  576. — But,  further,  the  subjective  (moral)  aspect  is  put  too  much  into  the 
.  background  by  the  objective  (legal)  one ;  and  the  rest  of  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ, 
as  seen  in  his  life,  almost  vanishes  out  of  sight  (comp,  however,  ii.  c.  18.)  Nor  can  it  be 
denied,  that  the  reconciliation  spoken  of  is  rather  one  made  on  the  part  of  God  with  men, 
than  a  reconciliation  of  men  with  God ;  see  Baur ,  p.  181.  Ullmann  (Nicolas  of  Methone, 
p.  93.)  ¥e  should,  however,  be  careful  not  to  confound  the  theory  of  Anselm  with  its 
development  by  later  Protestant  theologians.  On  the  question,  whether  the  satisfaction 

°  Comp,  also  i.  cap.  9 :  Non  coegit  Deus  Christum  mori,  in  quo  nullum  fuit  pecca¬ 
tum,  sed  ipse  sponte  sustinuit  mortem,  non  per  obedientiam  deserendi  vitam,  sed  propter 
obedientiam  servandi  justitiam,  in  qua  tarn  fortiter  perseveravit,  ut  inde  mortem  in- 
curreret. 


46 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


referred  to  by  Anselm  is,  properly  speaking,  not  so  much  a  suffering  of  punishment ,  as 
merely  an  active  rendering  of  obedience  f  inasmuch  as  he  makes  a  diherence  between 
punishment  and  satisfaction  (i.  15.  necesse  est,  ut  omne  peccatum  satisfactio  aut  poena 
sequatur)  see  Baur,  p.  183  ss.  Nevertheless,  it  is  certain,  that  the  satisfaction  made  by 
Christ,  in  the  view  of  Anselm,  consisted,  if  not  exclusively,  at  least  principally,  in  sub¬ 
mitting  to  sufferings  and  death ;  it  can  not,  therefore,  be  said  with  Baur,  “  that  the  idea  of 
a  punishment ,  by  which  satisfaction  is  made ,  and  which  is  suffered  in  the  room  of  another , 
does  not  occur  in  the  scheme  of  Anselm \_Baur:  Dogmengesch.  260-61,  finds  the  nerve  of 
Anselm’s  theory  in  Cur  Deus  Homo,  i.  23  ;  Nullatenus  debet  aut  potest  accipere  homo  a 
Deo,  quod  Deus  illi  dare  proposuit,  si  non  reddit  Deo  totum,  quod  illi  abstulit,  ut  sicut 
per  ilium  Deus  perdidit,  ita  per  ilium  Deus  recuperet. — The  honor  of  God  is  to  be  restored, 
not  merely  negatively  by  punishment,  but  positively  by  satisfaction  :  the  satisfaction,  as 
such,  is  a  moral  act  and  desert.]  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  admitted  that  Anselm 
rests  contented  with  the  idea  of  the  suffering  of  death :  in  his  writings  nothing  is  said  of 
the  Redeemer  being  under  the  burden  of  the  Divine  wrath ,  of  his  taking  upon  him  the 
torments  of  hell,  or  what  is  called  the  anguish  of  the  soul,  etc.  The  chaste  and  noble, 
tragical  style,  too,  in  which  the  subject  is  discussed,  forms  a  striking  contrast  with  the 
weak  and  whining,  even  sensuous  “  theology  of  blood”  of  later  ages. — Respecting  the 
relation  in  which  Anselm’s  theory  stood  to  the  doctrine  of  earlier  times,  see  Baur , 
p.  186  ss.  Neander,  Church  Hist.  (Torrey’s  transl.),  iv.  500-Y.  [On  Anselm’s  theory, 
see  British  and  Foreign  Quarterly  Review,  Edinb.  1859.  The  best  and  fullest  account  is 
in  Basse's  Anselm.  Comp,  also  Thomasius ,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  iii.  211-228:  “We 
can  not  say,  that  here  the  love  of  God  is  sacrificed  to  his  justice,  nor  that  the  love  of  the 
Father  recedes  behind  the  love  of  the  Son,  nor  that  the  relation  between  guilt  and  satis¬ 
faction  is  viewed  merely  quantitatively ;  but  yet  it  is  true,  that  the  love  of  God  is  not 
made  sufficiently  prominent)  and  that  the  passive  obedience  of  Christ  does  not  come  to  its 
full  recognition,  since  the  death  of  Christ  is  not  viewed  as  the  suffering  of  a  divine  judg¬ 
ment,  but  as  a  gift  to  the  honor  of  God,  hence  it  is  not  strictly  vicarious,  but  rather  sup¬ 
plementary.”  Yet  “the  idea  of  satisfaction  has  been  made  by  Anselm  the  inalienable 
possession  of  the  church.” — Neander,  Hist.  Dogmas,  p.  521 :  “  From  the  time  of  Anselm, 
two  opposing  views  of  redemption  were  developed :  the  one  viewed  its  method  as  ob¬ 
jectively  necessary,  and  derived  its  efficiency  from  this  necessity;  the  other  assigned 
rather  a  subjective  connexion  to  the  two,  as  if  it  had  been  merely  the  pleasure  of  God  to 
connect  the  price  of  redemption  with  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  because  these  were  best 
adapted  to  effect  the  moral  transformation  of  man.”  Comp.,  also,  Ritschl ,  in  Jahrb.  f. 
deutsche  Theologie,  1860,  p.  584,  sq.] 

■■* 

§  181. 

FURTHER  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  AND 

ATONEMENT. 

The  contemporaries  and  immediate  successors  of  Anselm  were 
far  from  adopting  his  theory  in  all  its  strictness.1  On  the  contrary, 
Abelard,  taking  in  this  case,  as  well  as  in  many  others,  the  opposite 
side  of  the  question,  attached  principal  importance  to  the  moral 
aspect  of  the  doctrine,  and  declared  the  love  of  Christ  the  redeem¬ 
ing  principle,  inasmuch  as  it  calls  forth  love  on  our  part.2  Bernard 
of  Clairval,  on  the  other  hand,  insisted  upon  the  mystical  idea  of 
the  vicarious  death  of  Christ.3  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  adhered  more 
nearly  to  the  doctrine  of  Anselm,  but  modified  it  so  far  as  to  return 
to  the  earlier  notion  of  a  legal  transaction  and  struggle  with  the 


§  181.  Atonement  and  Redemption.  47 

devil  ;  at  the  same  time  he  asserted  (with  Abelard)  the  moral  sig¬ 
nificance  of  Christ’s  death.4  The  opinions  of  Robert  Pulley n  and 
Peter  Lombard  were  still  more  closely  allied  with  those  of  Abelard, 
though  the  latter  combined  with  it  other  aspects  of  the  atonement.6 
The  later  scholastics  returned  to  the  doctrine  of  Anselm,  and  de¬ 
veloped  it  more  fully.6  Thus  Thomas  Aquinas  brought  the  priestly 
office  of  Christ  prominently  forward,  and  laid  great  stress  upon  the 
superabounding  merit  of  his  death.7  Duns  Scotus  went  to  the  other 
extreme,  denying  its  sufficiency  ;8  but  he  supposed  a  voluntary  ac¬ 
ceptance  on  the  part  of  God.  Wy cliff e  and  Wessel  attached  im¬ 
portance  to  the  theory  of  satifaction  in  its  practical  bearing  upon 
evangelical  piety,  and  thus  introduced  the  period  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion.9  The  mystics  either  renounced  all  claims  to  doctrinal  precision, 
and,  abandoning  themselves  to  the  impulses  of  feeling  and  imagina¬ 
tion,  endeavored  to  sink  into  the  depth  of  the  love  dying  on  the 
cross  ;  or  they  thought  to  find  the  true  principle  of  redemption  in 
the  repetition  in  themselves  of  the  sacrifice  once  made  by  Christ, 

i.  e.,  in  literally  crucifying  their  own  flesh.10  Those  of  a  pantheistic 
tendency  annulled  all  that  was  peculiar  in  the  merits  of  Christ.11 
The  external  and  mythical  interpretation  of  the  doctrine,  as  a  legal 
transaction,  led  to  offensive  poetical  exaggerations  and  distortions 
of  the  truth.1 2* 

1  “  If  we  must ,  on  the  one  hand ,  acknowledge  that  Anselm's  theory  of  sat¬ 
isfaction  is  a  brilliant  specimen  of  the  dialectical  and  speculative  acuteness 
of  the  scholastics ,  it  must  appear  to  us  strange  on  the  other  hand,  that  he 
stands  alone ,  and  does  not  seem  to  have  convinced  any  of  his  successors  of  the 
necessity  of  the  standpoint  which  he  assumed  Baur,  Versohnungslehre, 
p.  189. 

2  Abelard  opposed,  like  Anselm ,  hut  still  more  decidedly,  the  introduction 
of  the  devil  into  the  plan  of  redemption :  Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Rom.  Lib. 

ii.  (Opp.  p.  550),  quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  163  ;  Baur ,  p. 
191.  The  real  ground  of  the  reconciliation  was  stated  by  him  as  follows 
(p.  553,  quoted  by  Baur,  p.  194) :  Nobis  autem  videtur,  quod  in  hoc  justi- 
ficati  sumus  in  sanguine  Christi  et  Deo  reconciliati,  quod  per  hanc  singularem 
gratiam  nobis  exhibitam,  quod  filius  suus  nostram  susceperit  naturam,  et  in  ipso 
nos  tam  verbo,  quam  exemplo  instituendo  usque  ad  mortem  perstitit,  nos  sibi 
amplius  per  amorem  astrixit,  ut  tanto  divinae  gratae  accensi  beneficio,  nil  jam 

tolerare  propter  ipsum  vera  reformidet  caritas . Redemtio  itaque  nostra  est 

ilia  summa  in  nobis  per  passionem  Christi  dilectio,  quae  nos  {leg.  non)  solum  a 
servitute  peccati  liberat,  sed  veram  nobis  filiorum  Dei  libertatem,  acquirit,  ut 
amore  ejus  potius  quam  timore  cuncta  impleamus,  qui  nobis  tan  tam  exhibuit 
gratiam,  qua  major  inveniri,  ipso  attestante,  non  potest.  “  Thus  the  two  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  scholasticism ,  in  its  first  period ,  when  it  developed  itself  in  all  its 
youthful  vigor ,  Anselm  and  Abelard ,  were  directly  opposed  to  each  other ,  with 
respect  to  the  doctrines  of  redemption  and  atonement.  The  one  considered  the 
last  ground  of  it  to  be  the  divine  justice ,  requiring  an  infinite  equivalent  for  the 


48 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


infinite  guilt  of  sin ,  that  is,  a  necessity  founded  in  the  nature  of  God  ;  the 
other  held  it  to  be  the  free  grace  of  God,  which,  by  kindling  love  in  the  breast 
of  man,  blots  out  sin  and  with  sin  its  guilt:'1'1  Baur ,  Verso hnungsleh re,  p. 
195.  On  the  endeavors  of  Abelard,  notwithstanding  his  other  views,  to  re¬ 
present  redemption  in  its  legal  aspect,  see  ibidem.  [Abaelardi  Opera,  1606, 
p.  590 :  Sed  et  hoc,  ni  fallor,  contuendo  nobis  Apostolus  reliquit  (Rom.  v. 
12,  sq.),  Deum  in  incarnatione  filii  sui  id  quoque  sibi  machinatum  fuisse,  ut  non 
solum  misericordia,  verum  et  justitia  per  eum  subveniret  peccantibus,  et  ipsius 

justitia  suppleretur ,  quod  delictis  nostris  praepediebatur . Homo  itaque 

factus  lege  ipsa  dilectionis  proximi  constringitur,  ut  eos,  qui  sub  lege  erant, 
nec  per  legem  poterant  salvari,  redimeret,  et  quod  in  nostris  non  erat  meritis, 
ex  suis  suppleret,  et  sicut  sancitate  singularis  extitit,  singulars  fieret  utilitato 
in  aliorum  etiam  salute.] 

8  Bernard  opposed  Abelard,  in  the  first  place,  in  respect  to  the  point  that 
the  devil  has  no  legal  claims  upon  man,  see  Epist.  190,  de  Erroribus  Abas- 
lardi  ad  Innocentem  III.,  quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  164, 
Baur,  Versohnungsl.  p.  202.  He  made  a  distinction  between  jus  acquisitum, 
and  jus  nequiter  usurpatum,  juste  tamen  permissum.  lie  ascribed  the  latter 
to  the  devil :  Sic  itaque  homo  juste  cap tivus  tenebatur:  ut  tamen  nec  in 
homine,  nec  in  diabolo  ilia  esset  justitia,  sed  in  Deo.  Bernard,  moreover, 
urged  especially  the  fact,  that  Christ  as  the  head,  had  made  a  satisfaction  * 
for  the  members.  [Homo  siquidem,  qui  debuit,  homo  qui  salvit.  Nam  si 
unus  , inquit  (2  Cor.  v.  16)  pro  omnibus  mortuus  est,  ergo  omnes  mortui  sunt ,  ut 
videlicet  satisfactio  unius  hominis  imputetur,  sicut  omnium  peccata  unus  ille 
portavit,  nec  alter  jam  inveniatur,  qui  forefecit  (i.  e.  peccavit),  alter,  qui  satis- 
fecit,  quia  caput  et  corpus  unus  est  Christus.] — Satisfecit  caput  pro  membris, 
Christus  pro  visceribus  suis  (see  Baur ,  pp.  202,  203.)  Bernard’s  views  were 
most  nearly  allied  to  those  of  Augustine  and  Gregory  the  Great. 

5  In  the  system  of  Hugo,  God  appeared  as  the  patronus  of  man,  and  the 
opponent  of  the  devil.  But,  first  of  all,  it  was  necessary  to  conciliate  his 
favor.  This  idea  is  largely  dwelt  upon  in  his  Dialogus  de  Sacramentis  legis 
naturalis  et  script*.  De  Sacram.  c.  4  :  Dedit  Deus  gratis  homini,  quod 
homo  ex  debito  Deo  redderet.  Dedit  igitur  homini  hominem,  quern  homo 
pro  homine  redderet,  qui,  ut  dign^  recompensatio  fieret,  priori  non  solum 
sequalis,  sed  major  esset.  Ut  ergo  pro  homine  redderetur  homo  major 
homine,  factus  est  Deus  homo  pro  homine — Christus  ergo  nascendo  debitum 
hominis  p.atri  solvit  et  moriendo  reatum  hominis  expiavit,  ut,  cum  ipse  pro 
homine  mortem,  quam  non  debebat,  sustineret,  juste  homo  propter  ipsam 
mortem,  quam  debebat,  evaderet,  et  jam  locum  calumniandi  diabolus  non 
inveniret,  quia  et  ipse  homini  dominari  .non  debuit,  et  homo  liberari  dig- 
nus  fuiU — The  following  is  written  rather  in  the  spirit  of  Abelard,  c.  10  : 

Ut  in  Deo  humanitas  glorificata  exemplum  esset  glorificationis  homi- 
nibus ;  ut  in  eo,  qui,  passus  est,  videant,  quid  ei  retribuere  debeant,  in  eo 
autem,  qui  glorificatus  est,  considerent,  quid  ab  eo  debeant  exspectare  ;  ut  et 
ipse  sit  via  in  exemplo  et  veritas  in  promisso  et  vita  in  pracmio.  Comp. 
Liebner ,  Hugo  von  St.  Victor,  p.  417,  ss.  Baur,  Versohnungsl.  206, 
208. 

*  Concerning  Pulleyn,  who  in  other  respects  was  praised  by  Bernard  on 


§  181.  Atonement  and  Redemption. 


49 


account  of  his  orthodox}7,  see  Cramer ,  vol.  vi.  p.  490,  ss.,  Baur ,  p.  205. 
\Pulleyn  says,  the  Redeemer  must  suffer,  in  part  because  this  was  necessary 
to  our  redemption  (though  we  might  have  been  redeemed  in  some  other 
way),  in  part,  as  an  example  to  us  in  the  endurance  of  suffering.  But  the 
price  of  redemption  was  paid,  not  to  the  devil,  which  is  impossible ;  but  to 
God.]  Peter  Lombard ,  more  than  any  of  the  other  scholastics,  regarded  the 
subject  in  question  from  the  psychologico-moral  point  of  view  (see  Baur ,  p. 
209),  Sent.  Lib.  iii.  Dist.  19 :  A.  Quomodo  a  peccatis  per  ejus  mortem  soluti 
sumus  ?  Quia  per  ejus  mortem,  ut  ait  Apostolus,  commendatur  nobis  caritas 
Dei,  i.  <?.,  apparet  eximia  et  commendabilis  caritas  Dei  erga  nos  in  hoc,  quod 
filium  suum  tradidit  in  mortem  pro  nobis  peccatoribus.  Exhibita  autem 
tantse  erga  nos  dilectionis  arrha  et  nos  movemur  accendimurque  ad  diligen- 
dum  Deum,  qui  pro  nobis  tanta  fecit,  et  per  hoc  justificamur ,  i.  e.,  soluti  a 
peccatis  justi  efficimur.  Mors  ergo  Christi  nos  justificat,  dum  per  earn  caritas 
excitatur  in  cordibus  nostris. — Peter  Lombard  decidedly  opposed  the  notion, 
that  God  had,  as  it  were,  altered  his  views  respecting  the  sinner,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  death  of  Christ,  ibid.,  F :  Reconciliati  sumus  Deo,  ut  ait 
apostolus,  per  mortem  Christi.  Quod  non  sic  intelligendum  est,  quasi  nos  ei 
sic  reconciliaverat  Christus,  ut  inciperet  amare  quos  oderat,  sicut  recon cilia- 
tur  inimicus  inimico,  ut  deinde  sint  amici,  qui  ante  se  oderant,  sed  jam  nos 
diligenti  Deo  reconciliati  sumus.  Non  enim,  ex  quo  ei  reconciliati  sumus  per 
sanguinem  filii,  nos  ’coepit  diligere,  sed  ante  mundum  priusquam  nos  aliquid 
essemus. — Nevertheless  he  also  admitted  the  doctrine  of  substitution,  though 
he  expressed  himself  respecting  it  in  very  general  terms  (as  did  Bernard  of 
Clairval)  ;  loc.  cit.  D.  \Thomasius  Christi  Person,  iii.  232,  quotes  from  the 
Lombard :  Peccata  nostra,  i.  e .,  pcenam  peccatorum  nostrorum  in  corpore 
suo  super  lignum  portasse,  quia  per  ipsius  poenam,  quam  in  cruce  tulit,  omnis 
poena  temporalis,  quae  pro  peccato  conversis  debetur,  in  baptismo  penitus  re- 
laxatur,  ut  nulla  a  baptizato  exigatur  et  in  poenitentia  minoratur.  Non  enim 
sufficeret  ilia  poena,  qua  poenitentes  ligat  ecclesia,  nisi  poena  cooperaretur, 
>  qui  pro  nobis  solvit.]  ( Baur ,  p.  213.)  And  lastly  the  devil  occupied  a 
very  strange  position  in  the  system  of  Peter  Lombard.  (Quid  fecit  redemp- 
tor  captivatori  nostro  ?  tetendit  ei  muscipulum  crucem  suam :  posuit  ibi 
quasi  escam  sanguinem  suum.)  Baur ,  p.  211,  comp,  also  p.  79.  [On  the  views 
of  Raymund  Lulli,  see  Neander ,  Hist.  Dogm.  581.  Of  Innocent  III.,  Nean- 
der  says  (p.  583),  that  he  was  “the  first  who  represented  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ  as  a  reconciliation  between  the  divine  attributes  of  mercy  and  justice 
Modum  invenit,  per  quern  utrique  satisfaceret  tam  misericordise  quam  jus- 
titise  :  judicavit  igitur,  ut  assumeret  in  se  poenam  pro  omnibus  et  clonaret 
per  se  gloriam  universis.  Sermo  i.  fol.  6,  ed.  Colon.  1575.  “This,”  adds 
Neander,  “  was  the  first  assertion  of  the  satis/ actio  vicaria  jiassiva  among 
the  schoolmen.”  Neander  also  cites  from  William  of  Paris  :  Quid  mirum 
est,  Deum  esse  factum  hominem,.participatione  humanse  naturae,  ut  homo 
etiam  fieret  Deus,  congruenti  sibi  p^irticipatione  deitatis.  The  love  of  God 
must  be  revealed,  that  man  may  love  God  :  Quia  amor  amore  convenientius 
accenditur,  sicut  ignis  igne,  decuit  Deum  amorem  nostrum  amore  suo  accen- 
dere.] 

*  Thus  Alanus  ab  Insulis  iii.  (quoted  by  Pez ,  T.  i.  p.  493-97)  ;  Albertus 

4 


50 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


Magnus  (Sent.  Lib.  iii.  Dist.  20,  Art.  7) ;  Alexander  Hales,  in  Summse  P. 
iii.  Qu.  1,  Membr.  4,  ss.,  see  Cramer ,  vii.  p.  574,  ss.,  Baur,  p.  215,  note. 
\Alexander ,  Summa,  Pars  iii.  qu.  1.  membrum  5,  that  man  can  not  make  sat¬ 
isfaction  without  the  gift  of  grace :  Membr.  6,  that  no  creature  could  do  it, 
being  finite :  Membr.  7,  that  only  the  Godman  could  do  it :  Ergo  necesse 
est,  quod  satisficiat  Deus,  qui  potest,  et  homo,  qui  debet,  ergo  debet  satisfacere 
Deus  homo,  et  non  solus  Deus  nec  solus  homo.]  Bonaventura  (Opp.  T.  v.  p. 
191,  ss.,  ibid.  p.  218,  ss.) 

7  Summse  Pars,  iii.  Qu.  22,  (de  Sacerdotio  Christi),  quoted  by  Munscher , 
edit,  by  Yon  Colin,  p.  166.  His  theory  of  satisfaction  will  be  found  ibid. 
Qu.  46-49.*  Baur ,  Versohnungsl.  p.  230,  ss.  He  discussed  especially  the 
necessity  of  suffering,  and  the  question,  Whether  God  could  have  redeemed 
man  in  any  other  way?  and  replied  to  it  both  in  the  affirmative  and  nega¬ 
tive,  according  to  the  idea  formed  of  necessity.  (Art.  2.  Baur,  p.  232.)  At 
all  events,  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  the  most  proper  way,  and  the  one 
most  to  the  purpose.  It  was  also  significant,  that  Christ  suffered  on  the 
cross,  which  reminds  us  not  only  of  the  tree  in  Paradise,  but  also  of  this, 
that  the  cross  is  a  symbol  of  various  virtues,  as  well  as  of  that  breadth,  and 
length,  and  depth,  and  height  of  which  the  apostle  spoke  (Eph.  iii.  18),  of 
our  exaltation  into  heaven,  etc.  While  Anselm  did  not  go  beyond  the  sim¬ 
ple  fact  of  Christ’s  death,  Aquinas  endeavored  to  demonstrate,  that  Christ 
endured  in  his  head,  hands,  and  feet,  all  the  sufferings  hich  men  have  to 
endure  in  their  reputation,  worldly  possessions,  body  and  soul,  in  head, 
hands,  and  feet ;  accordingly,  the  pain  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  is  by 
far  the  greatest  which  can  be  endured  in  the  present  life  (in  proof  of  which 
he  adduced  several  arguments.)  Nevertheless  his  soul  possessed  the  uninter¬ 
rupted  enjoyment  of  blessedness ,  Art.  8,  (but  Thomas  Aquinas  himself  did  not 
as  yet  speak  of  the  soul’s  enduring  the  torments  of  hell,  or  bearing  the 
eternal  curse,  thus  leaving  the  sufferings  incomplete.)  [But  Aquinas  con¬ 
siders  this  case  of  eternal  punishment,  also ;  and  argues,  that  Christ  need 
not,  and  could  not,  thus  suffer  ;  the  dignity  of  his  person,  and  his  voluntary 
sacrifice  were  sufficient;  see  Thomasius,  ubi  supra,  236  sq.  Christ  suffered 
all  that  man  deserved,  “ secundum  genus,”  and  not  “secundum  speciem.”] 
He  further  propounded  (like  Bernard  of  Clairval)  the  mystical  idea,  accord¬ 
ing  to  which  the  head  suffers  for  the  members  (Qusest.  48,  art.  1.)  :  Christus 
per  suam  passionem  non  solum  sibi,  sed  etiam  omnibus  membris  suis  meruit 
salutem.  Passio  non  est  meritoria,  inquantum  habet  principium  ab  exteriori, 
sed  secundum  quod  earn  aliquis  voluntarie  sustinet,  sic  habet  principium  ab 
interiori,  et  hoc  modo  est  meritoria. — Thomas  made  use  of  the  same  mys- 

/  *  In  Thomas  Aquinas  we  also  find  (as  the  title  indicates)  the  first  hints  about  the 
threefold  office  of  Christ,  since  he  views  him  as  legislator,  sacerdos  and  rex.  However, 
he  does  not  use  the  expression  munus ,  officium ,  and  only  develops  the  sacerdotium , 
showing  how  Christ  was  at  once  sacerdos  and  hostia  perfecta.  See  Gieseler,  Dog- 
mengesch.  ,513.  [Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  I.  3,  already  recognizes  the  three  offices,  saying, 
that  high  priests,  kings  and  prophets  were  anointed  as  types,  having  reference  to  the  true 
Christ,  the  Logos,  who  is  the  only  high  priest  of  all,  the  only  king  of  all  creation,  and 
the  only  arch-prophet  of  the  prophets  of  the  Father.  Comp.  Ebrard  in  Herzog’s  Real- 
eacyclop.J 


51 


§  181.  Further  Development. 

tical  idea  to  refute  the  objection  that  one  being  could  not  make  satisfaction 
for  another ;  for,  inasmuch  as  two  are  made  one  through  love,  the  one  may 
make  satisfaction  for  the  other.  Concerning  the  meritum  superabundant, 
Qu.  48,  art.  2  :  Christus  autem  ex  charitate  et  obedientia  patiendo  majus 
aliquid  Deo  exhibuit,  quam  exigeret  recompensatio  totius  offensse  humani 
generis :  primo  quidem  propter  magnitudinem  charitatis ,  ex  qua  patieba- 
tur  ;  secundo  propter  dignitatem  vitae  suae,  quam  pro  satisfactione  ponebat, 
qua3  erat  vita  Dei  et  hominis  ;  tertio  propter  generalitatem  passionis  et 

magnitudinem  doloris  assumti . et  ideo  passio  Christi  non  solum 

sufficiens ,  sed  etiam  super abundans  satis/ actio  fuit  pro  peccatis  humani 
generis  (1  John  ii.  2.)  Respecting  his  further  statements,  see  Baur ,  Ver- 
soliuungslehre,  and  Miinscher,  edit,  by  Yon  Colin,  p.  167.  \Thomasius, 
ubi  supra,  '236  sq.,  and  Bits  chi,  in  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theologie,  1860, 
p.  597  sq.] 

8  Duns  Scotus  in  Sent.  L.  iii.  Dist.  19:  .  .  .  Quantum  vero  attinet  ad 
meriti  sufficientiam,  fuit  profecto  illud  finitum,  quia  causa  ejus  iinita  fuit, 
videlicet  voluntas  naturae  assumptse,  et  summa  gloria  illi  collata.  Non  enim 
Christus  quatenus  Deus  meruit,  sed  in  quantum  homo.  Proinde  si  exquiras, 
quantum  valuerit  Christi  meritum  secundum  sufficientiam,  valuit  procul  du- 
bio  quantum  fuit  a  Deo  acceptatum.  Siquidem  divina  acceptatio  est  potis- 

sima  causa  et  ratio  omnis  meriti . Tantum  valuit  Christi  meritum  suffi- 

cienter,  quantum  potuit  et  voluit  ipsum  Trinitas  acceptare,  etc. — Thus  he 
destroyed  the  principal  argument  of  Anselm’s  theory  in  his  Cur  Deus  Homo  ? 
for,  since  Christ  suffered  only  in  his  human  nature,  an  angel,  or  any  other 
man,  might  have  suffered  quite  as  well,  as  Duns  Scotus  was  fully  prepared 
to  admit.  Comp.  Baur ,  p.  256.  On  this  account  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
appeared  even  less  necessary  to  Scotus  than  they  did  to  Thomas  Aquinas. 
Both  their  systems  are  compared  by  Baur ,  Versohnungsl,  pp.  257,  258. — 
Bonaventura  occupied  an  intermediate  position  between  the  two  former,  by 
teaching  a  perfectio  et  plenitudo  meriti  Christi.  Brev.  iv.  c.  7,  Cent.  iii. 
sect.  30.  [The  theory  of  Scotus  was  favored  by  nominalism.  Clement  VI 
sanctioned  the  Thomist  theory  in  his  jubilee  bull  of  1343.  Baur.  William 
Occam ,  the  great  reviver  of  nominalism,  passes  over  the  topic  wholly  in  his 
commentary  on  the  Lombard,  and  merely  alludes  to  it  in  his  Quodlibeta. 
The  Spanish  nominalist,  Michael  de  Placois  (in  the  16th  century),  says: 
Mortem  Christi  non  explevisse  justitiam,  sed  solum  explevisse  ex  magna  con- 
dignitate — quod  ad  justitise  sequalitatem  attinet,  tantum  valorem  habere 
oportuisse  opera  puri  hominis,  quantum  habuerunt  opera  Christi,  quia  per  se 
neutra  sufficiebant.  Quoted  in  Thomasius,  ubi  supra,  p.  245.  On  Gabriel 
Did,  see  ibid.  p.  251  sq.  On  Duns  Scotus,  see  Ritschl,  in  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche 
Theol.  1860,  p.  565  sq.] 

6  Wycliffe.  Trialogus  iii.  c.  25  (De  Incarnatione  et  Morte  Christi),  quoted 
by  Baur,  p.  273.  [Dialog,  lib.  iii.  cap.  25 :  Salvari  enim  oportet  ilium  homi- 
nem  (Adam),  cum  tam  fructuose  poenituit,  et  Deus  non  potest  negare  suam 
misericordiam  taliter  pcenitenti.  Et  cum,  juxta  suppositionem  tertiam,  opor¬ 
tet,  quod  satisfactio  pro  peccato  fiat,  ideo  oportet,  quod  idem  illud  genus 
hominis  tantum  satisfaciat,  quantum  in  prothoplasto  deliquerat,  quod  null  us 
homo  faeere  poterat,  nisi  simul  fuerat  Deus  et  homo . Et  fuit  necessa- 


52 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


rium,  ipsam  acceptum  fnisse  in  ligno,  *ut  sicut  ex  fructu  ligni  vetito  periit 
homo,  sic  ex  fructu  ligni  passo  salvetur  homo.  Et  sunt  alise  multae  con- 
gruentise  utrobique.]  He  laid,  however,  quite  as  much  stress  upon  repent¬ 
ance  as  upon  the  theory  of  satisfaction. — According  to  Wessel ,  Christ  was 
our  Redeemer,  even  by  representing  in  himself  the  divine  life  (an  idea  which 
had  almost  wholly  sunk  into  oblivion  since  the  time  of  Anselm.)  Neverthe¬ 
less  he  was  also  Mediator ;  yea,  he  was  God,  priest,  and  sacrifice  at  the  same 
time.  We  see  in  him  both  the  God  who  was  reconciled,  and  the  one  who 
brought  about  that  reconciliation.  Comp.  De  Magnitud.  Passionis,  c.  17, 
and  Exempla  Scalse  Meditationis,  Ex.  iii.  p.  391  ;  quoted  by  Ullmann ,  p.  261, 
JSaur ,  p.  277.  “  Wessel ,  too,  considered  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord  as  being 

made  by  a  substitute  ;  but  going  beyond  the  merely  external  and  legal  trans¬ 
action .,  he  asserted  the  necessity  of  a  living  faith ,  and  the  appropriation 
of  the  Spirit  of  Christ Ullmann ,  p.  264.  He  attached,  therefore  (as 
did  Abelard  and  Peter  Lombard),  great  importance  to  the  principle  of  love. 
He  who  would  form  a  correct  estimate  of  the  full  measure  of  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  must  come  to  them,  above  all,  with  an  eye  exercised  in  love ;  De 
Magnit.  Passionis,  p.  19.  Further  passages  may  be  seen  in  the  works  of 
Ullmann  and  J3aur. 

10  The  emotional  contemplation  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  expressions 
such  as  “  the  blood  of  Jesus ,  full  of  love ,  and  red  like  a  rosev  (e.  g.  in  the 
writings  of  Suso),  may,  indeed,  be  traced  to  mysticism.  But  the  true  mys¬ 
tics  did  not  rest  satisfied  with  this.  Thus  the  author  of  the  “  Deutsche 
Theologie,”  c.  3,  after  having  proved  that  God  had  assumed  humanity  in 
order  to  remove  the  effects  of  the  fall,  thus  continues  :  “  Though  God  were 
to  take  to  himself  all  men  who  exist,  and  to  assume  their  nature,  and  be 
incarnated  in  them,  and  make  them  divine  in  him,  yet,  if  the  same  did  not 
take  place  with  regard  to  myself, ‘  my  fall  and  rebellion  would  never  be 
destroyed.” — In  more  distinct  reference  to  the  design  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  Tauler  said  (in  a  sermon  on  Luke  x.  23,  quoted  by  Wackernagel , 
Lesebuch  i.  sp.  868) :  “  Since  your  great  God  was  thus  set  at  nought,  and 
condemned  by  his  creatures,  and  was  crucified  and  died,  you  should,  with 
patient  endurance,  and  with  all  suffering  humility,  behold  yourselves  in  his 
sufferings ,  and  have  your  minds  thereby  impressed .”  Compare  also  his 
Sermons,  i.  p.  289  (Sermon  on  Good  Friday.) — Bishop  Master  Albrecht  said  : 
“Four-and-twenty  hours  compose  day  and  night ;  take  one  of  the  hours  and 
divide  it  into  two,  and  spend  it  in  contemplating  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord — 
that  which  is  better  and  more  useful  to  man  than  if  all  men,  and  all  the 
saints,  and  all  the  angels  of  God,  and  Mary,  the  mother  of  God,  should  re¬ 
member  him  [i.  e .,  should  intercede  for  him.]  As  man  dies  a  bodily  death, 
so  he  dies  unto  all  sin,  by  serious  meditation  on  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ^  (Spruche  deutscher  Mystiker,  in  WackernageVs  Lesebuch, 
sp.  889.) — But  not  only  did  the  mystics  urge  the  necessity  of  recalling  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  by  inward  contemplation,  but  the  same  idea  was  also 
externally  represented  by  the  self-inflicted  torments  of  ascetics,  especially  ot 
the  Flagellantes  of  the  middle  ages.  In  the  latter  case  it  must,  however,  be 
admitted,  that  as  the  spirit  of  self-righteousness  was  called  forth,  the  merits 
of  Christ  were  thrown  into  the  shade.  Thus,  it  is  said,  in  one  of  the  hymns 


§  182.  Connection  of  Christology  and  Soteriology.  53 


of  the  Flagellantes  (a.  d.  1349) :  “Through  God  we  shed  our  blood,  on  ac¬ 
count  of  which  our  sins  will  be  pardoned.”  (Hoffmann,  Geschichte  des 
deutschen  Kirch enliedes,  p.  94.) 

11  The  Beghards  taught :  Christus  non  est  passus  pro  nobis,  sed  pro  se 
ipso.  (Mosheim,  p.  256.)  Almarich  of  Bena  maintained,  that  by  all  Christ¬ 
ians  being  members  of  Christ,  we  are  to  understand,  that,  as  such,  they 
participated  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ  on  the  cross.  ( Engelhard t,  p.  253.) 
Thus  he  inverted  the  doctrine  according  to  which  the  head  died  for  the 
members  (that  of  Bernard  of  Clairval,  and  Thomas  Aquinas.) 

12  Jacob  de  Theramo ,  who  lived  in  the  fourteenth  century  (1382)  treated 
the  transaction  between  Christ  and  Belial  (the  devil)  in  the  form  of  a  judi¬ 
cial  process;  this  was  translated  into  German  in  the  15th  century,  under 
the  title :  “  Hie  hept  sich  an  ein  Rechtsbuoch comp.  W.  Wackernagel , 
Die  altdeutschen  Handschriften  der  Baseler  TJniversitatsbibliothek,  1835, 
4to.  pp.  62,  sq.  Baur ,  (relying  on  Doderlein’s  Diss.  Inauguralis,  1774-5, 
in  his  Opusc.  Academ.  Jena,  1789),  calls  it  a  carnival  play  ;  but  it  is  not  so, 
the  subject  is  intended  to  be  treated  in  an  earnest  spirit.  Compare  a  simi¬ 
lar  drama  :  Extractio  Animarum  ab  Inferno,  in  the  English  Miracle- Plays  or 
Mysteries ,  by  W.  Marriott.  Bas.  1838,  p.  161.  [Comp.  Karl  Ease,  das 
geistliche  Schauspiel,  1858.] 


§  182. 

THE  CONNECTION  BETWEEN  SOTERIOLOGY  AND  CHRISTOLOGY. 
Julius  Muller  in  the  Deutsche  Zeitschrift  f.  christl.  Wissenschaft.  Oct.  1850. 


In  the  theory  of  Anselm,  so  much  importance  was  attached  to 
the  incarnation  and  death  of  Jesus,  as  the  foundation  of  the  work 
of  redemption,  that  there  was  danger  lest  the  wonderful  life  of  the 
Redeemer,  which  lies  between  the  two,  should  lose  its  religious 
significance.  There  were,  however,  those  who  again  directed  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  life  of  the  Godman,  as  itself  having  a  redeeming  power.1 
Some,  indeed,  made  it  appear  that  Christ  came  into  the  world 
only  in  order  to  die,  and  that  consequently  he  would  not  have  been 
sent  at  all  if  there  had  been  no  sin  to  atone.  On  the  other  hand, 
others,  e.  g.  Wessel ,  pointed  out  in  various  ways  the  significance 
which  the  manifestation  of  God  in  the  flesh  must  have,  indepen¬ 
dently  of  sin  and  its  effects,  as  the  keystone  of  creation,  and  crown 
of  humanity.’ 

1  See  Wessel  in  the  preceding  §,  note  9. 

a  Comp.  vol.  i.  §  64.  “  The  question,  whether  Christ  would  have  assumed 

the  nature  of  man  if  there  had  been  no  sin ,  was  not  discussed  until  the  mid¬ 
dle  ages ,  being  started ,  as  it  appears,  for  the  first  time  by  Rupertus,  Abbot  of 


54 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


Buitz ,  in  the  12  th  century .”  Borner ,  p.  134  ;  comp,  his  work,  De  Glorificatione 
Trinitatis,  et  Processione  Sp.  Sanct.  lib.  iii.  c.  21  ;  iv.  2,  and  Comm,  in  Mattli. 
de  Gloria  et  Honore  Filii  homin.  lib.  xiii.  (Opera,  Tom.  ii.  164)  ;  Gieseler , 
Dogmengesch.  514.  [Rupert  says,  that  men  and  angels  were  created  for 
the  sake  of  the  one  man,  Jesus  Christ ;  he,  the  head  and  king  of  all  elect 
angels  and  men,  did  not  need  sin  in  order  to  become  incarnate.  Alexander 
of  Hales  adopted  the  same  view :  Summa  Theol.  P.  iii.  Qn.  2,  Membr.  13. 
Bonaventura  agrees  with  Aquinas.] — The  language  of  Thomas  Aquinas  \ 
sufficiently  shows  that  he  too  felt  disposed  to  look  upon  the  incarnation  of  j 
Christ  as  being  in  one  respect  the  completion  of  creation.  In  his  Comment.  / 
on  the  Sentences,  Lib.  iii.  Dist.  1.  Qu.  1,  Art.  3,  he  said,  that  the  incarnation- f 
had  not  only  effected  deliverance  from  sin,  but  also — hum  an  80  naturae  exalta- 
tionem  et  totius  universi  consummationem.  Comp.  Summa,  P.  iii.  Qu.  1, 
Art.  3  ;  Ad  omnipotentiam  divinae  virtutis  pertinet,  ut  opera  sua  perficiat  et 
se  manifestet  per  aliquem  infinitum  effectum,  cum  sit  finita  per  suam  essen- 
tiam,  Nevertheless,  he  thought  it  more  probable  (according  to  P.  iii.  Qu.  1, 

3),  that  Christ  would  not  have  become  man  if  there  had  been  no  sin.  This 
notion  generally  obtained,  and  theologians  preferred  praising  (after  the  example 
of  Augustine)  sin  itself  as  feiix  culpa  (thus  Richard  of  St.  Victor ,  De  In- 
carnat.  Yerbi.  c.  8),  rather  than  admit  the  possibility  of  the  manifestation  of 
the  Son  of  God  apart  from  any  connection  with  sin.  Buns  Scotus ,  how¬ 
ever,  felt  inclined  to  adopt  the  latter  view,  which  was  more  in  accordance 
with  his  entire  Pelagian  tendency;*  Lib.  iii.  Sent.  Dist.  vii.  Qu.  3,  and  Dist. 
xix.  On  the  other  hand,  Wessel,  whose  sentiments  were  by  no  means  like 
those  of  Pelagius,  took  the  same  view  (De  Incarn.  c.  7  and  c.  11,  quoted  by 
Ullmann ,  p.  254).  In  his  opinion  the  final  cause  of  the  incarnation  of  the 
Son  of  God  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  human  race,  but  in  the  Son  of  God 
himself.  He  became  man  for  his  own  sake  ;  it  was  not  the  entrance  of  sin 
into  the  world  which  called  forth  this  determination  of  the  divine  will ; 
Christ  would  have  assumed  humanity  even  if  Adam  had  never  sinned  :  Si 
incarnatio  facta  est  principaliter  propter  peccati  expiationem,  sequeretur, 
quod  anima  Christi  facta  sit  non  principali  intentione,  sed  quadam  quasi  oc- 
casione.  Sed  inconveniens  est,  nobilissimam  creaturam  occasionaliter  esse 
introductam  (quoted  by  Dorner ,  p.  140.) 

[Comp,  on  the  subject  of  this  section,  W.  FlorJce ,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  d. 


*  This  was  done  in  later  times  by  the  Socinians.  Nevertheless,  the  theory  in  question 
may  be  so  strained,  “  that  sin  is  made  light  of,  and  mankind  exalted,  rather  than  the  dig¬ 
nity  of  Christ  augmented .”  (Dorner,  p.  131.)  But  whether  the  notion  of  a  feiix  culpa, 
by  which  sin  is  made  to  appear  as  Oeotokoc,  might  not  lead  men  so  far  as  to  worship  it  on 
pantheistic  grounds,  and  at  the  same  time  to  make  light  of  it  in  the  moral  point  of  view, 
is  another  question.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  if  we,  looking  at  sin  in  a  serious  light,  re¬ 
gard  the  incarnation  of  Christ  merely  as  something  which  has  become  necessary  in  order 
to  repair  the  damage,  its  happy  aspect  will  be  lost  sight  ofJ  and  the  joy  we  might  experi¬ 
ence  at  Christmas  will  too  soon  be  changed  into  the  weeping  and  wailing  of  the  Passion- 
week.  This  is  the  principal  defect  of  Anselm’s  theory.  But  with  respect  to  the  exaltation 
of  mankind  at  the  expense  of  the  dignity  of  Christ,  the  latter,  so  far  from  being  endan¬ 
gered  by  the  theory  of  'Weasel,  is  raised  by  the  idea  that  Christ  assumed  humanity  not 
on  account  of  man,  but  for  his  own  sake,  an  idea  by  which  the  pride  of  man  is  humbled. 
[This  note  is  omitted  in  the  5th  edition  of  Hagenbach.] 


§  182.  Connection  of  Christology  and  Soteriology.  55 


Lutkerische  Tkeologie,  1854,  p.  209-249;  Liebner ,  in  liis  Christologie ; 
Dorner ,  Lekre  von  der  Person  Ckristi ;  Tkomasius ,  Christi  Person  und 
Werk,  i.  169.  Aquinas  denied  tlie  position,  that  Christ  would  have  become 
incarnate  even  if  there  had  been  no  sin,  not  merely  on  the  ground  that  the 
Scripture  connects  the  incarnation  only  with  sin,  but  also,  because  the  per¬ 
fection  of  the  universe  did  not  require  it :  Ad  perfectionem  universi  sufficit, 
quod  naturali  modo  creatura  ordinetur  in  Deum  sicut  finem.  Hoc  autem 
excedit  limites  perfectionis  naturse,  ut  creatura  uniatur  Deo  in  persona: 
Summa ,  Pars  iii.  qu.  1,  art.  3.  Baymund  Lulli ,  as  quoted  in  Neander,  Hist. 
Do  gm.  582,  says  that  the  incarnation  is  indeed  a  work  of  free  love ;  and 
that  we  can  not  say  that  it  was  only  brought  about  by  sin,  but  that  God 
owed  it  to  himself:  Alias  Deus  non  solveret  debitum  sibi  ipsi  et  suis  digni- 

¥ 


FIFTH  DIVISION. 


THE  ORDO  SALUTIS. 

§  183. 

*  PREDESTINATION. 

( The  Controversy  of  Gottschalk .) 

CeUot,  L.y  Historia  Gotteschalci.  Par.  1655,  i  \Staudenmaier,  Scotus  Erigena,  p.  170, 
ss.  Gfrorer,  on  Pseudo-Isidore  in  the  Tubingen  Theol.  Zeitschrift,  xviii.  274,  sg. 
Wiggers ,  Schicksale  d.  Angustinischen  Anthropologie,  in  Niedner's  Zeitschrift  f.  hist. 
Theol.,  1857-8.  [  Weizsdcker,  Das  Dogma  von  der  gottlichen  Vorherbestimmung  im 

neunten  Jahr.  in  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theol.,  1859.  Archb.  Ussher ,  Gottschalcus 
et  Prsedest.  Controvers.  ab  eo  mota,  Dublin,  1631,  and  in  Ussher1  s  Works,  16 
vols.,  Dublin,  1837-40.  The  Predestination  Controversy  in  the  Ninth  Century, 
Princeton  Review,  1840.  F.  Monnier ,  De  Gottschalci  et  Joan.  Scoti  Erigenae  Con- 
troversia,  Paris,  1853.] 

Great  as  was  the  authority  of  Augustine  in  the  West,  the  pre¬ 
vailing  notions  concerning  the  doctrine  of  Predestination  contained 
more  or  less  of  the  Semipelagian  element.1  Accordingly,  when  in  the 
course  of  the  ninth  century  Gottschalk ,  a  monk  in  the  Franciscan 
monastery  of  Orbais,  ventured  to  revive  the  rigid  Augustinian  doc¬ 
trine,  and  even  went  so  far  as  to  assert  a  twofold  predestination,  not 
only  to  salvation  hut  also  to  damnation,2  he  exposed  himself  to  per¬ 
secution.  He  was  in  the  first  instance,  opposed  by  Rabanus  Mau- 
rus ,3  and  afterwards  condemned  by  the  Synods  of  Mayence  (a.  d. 
848),  and  of  Quiercy  (Cressy,  Carisiacum,  a.  d.  849).4  Hincmar , 
Archbishop  of  Rheims,  took  part  in  the  transactions  of  the  latter 
Synod.  Though  Prudentius  of  Troyes ,5  Ratramn ,6  Servatus  Lupus ,7 
and  several  others,  pronounced  in  favor  of  Gottschalk,  though 
under  certain  modifications,  John  Scotus  Erigena ,  by  an  ingenious 
argumentation  contrived  to  preserve  the  appearance  of  Augustinian 
orthodoxy,  by  maintaining,  on  the  basis  of  the  position  borrowed 
from  Augustine,  that  evil  was  something  negative,  and  therefore 
could  not,  as  such,  he  predestinated  by  God.8  The  objections  ad¬ 
vanced  b y  Prudentius  and  Florus  (Magister)  were  as  little  heeded  as 
the  steps  taken  by  Remigius ,  Archbishop  of  Lyons,  in  behalf  of 
Gottschalk.8  On  the  contrary,  the  second  Synod  of  Quiercy  (Cressy, 
A.  D.  853)  laid  down  four  articles,  in  accordance  with  the  views  of 


§  183.  Predestination. 


57 


Hincmar  ;10  then  several  bishops  at  the  Synod  of  Valence  drew  up 
six  other  articles  of  a  contrary  tendency,  which  were  confirmed  by 
the  Synod  of  Langres  (a.  d.  859), 11  but  zealously  opposed  again  by 
Hincmar.12  Gottschalk,  the  victim  of  the  passions  of  others,  bore 
his  fate  with  that  fortitude  and  resignation,  which  have  at  all  times 
characterised  those  individuals  or  bodies  of  men  who  have  adopted 
the  doctrine  of  Predestination. 

1  The  theologians  of  the  Greek  church  retained  the  earlier  definitions  as  a 
matter  of  course.  John  Damasc.  He  Fide  Orthod.  ii.  c.  30  :  Xp?/  y ivgjokelv, 
cjg  Tcavra  pev  TTpoyivdoicei  6  Oeog,  ov  ndvra  de  npoopi^er  irpoyivdyoiceL  yap 
ra  £0’  ijplv,  ov  npoopt^ei  de  avra.  (Comp.  §  177*,  note  1). — Respecting 
the  opinions  entertained  by  the  theologians  of  the  Western  church ;  see  vol. 
i.  §  114.  The  venerable  Bede  (Expositio  Allegorica  in  Canticum  Cantic.) 
and  Alcuin  (de  Trinit.  c.  8)  adopted,  in  the  main,  the  views  of  Augustine, 
but  rejected  the  praedestinatio  duplex.  Comp.  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin, 
pp.  121,  122.  They  were,  however,  unconscious  of  the  difference  between 
themselves  and  Augustine;  see  Neander,  Church  History,  iv.  p.  472,  sg. 
Wiggers ,  ubi  supra. 

3  Respecting  the  history  of  his  life,  and  the  possible  connection  between 
it  and  his  doctrine,  see  Neander,  1.  c.  p.  414,  ss. ;  Staudenmaier,  1.  c.  p.  175, 
[aud  Gieseler,  ii.  §  16.]  His  own  views,  as  well  as  those  of  his  opponents, 
may  be  gathered  from  Guilb.  Maugin ,  Vett.  Auctorum,  qui  saec.  IX.  de 
Praedestinatione  et  Gratia  scripserunt,  Opera  et  Fragmenta.  Paris,  1650, 
Tomi.  ii.  4to  (in  T.  ii. :  Gotteschalcanae  Controversiae  Historica  et  Chronica 
Dissertatio.)  In  the  Libellus  Fidei  which  Gottschalk  presented  to  the  synod 
of  Mayence,  he  asserted:  Sicut  electos  omnes  (Deus)  praedestinavit  ad  vitam 

per  gratuitum  solius  gratise  suae  beneficium . sic  omnino  et  reprobos 

quosque  ad  aeternae  mortis  prsedestinavit  supplicium,  per  justissimum  vide¬ 
licet  justitiae  suae  judicium  (after  Hincmar,  de  Praed.  c.  5).  In  his  con¬ 
fession  of  faith  (given  by  Munscher,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  p.  122)  he  expressed 
himself  as  follows :  Credo  et  confiteor,  quod  gemina  est  praedestinatio,  sive 
electorum  ad  requiem,  sive  reproborum  ad  mortem.  But  he  referred  the 
praedestinatio  duplex  not  so  much  to  evil  itself,  as  to  the  wicked.  Compare 
the  passage  quoted  by  Neander,  iii.  475  :  Credo  atque  confiteor,  prsescisse  te 
ante  ssecula  quaecunque  erunt  futura  sive  bona  sive  mala,  praedestinasse  vero 
tantummodo  bona.  On  the  connection  subsisting  between  his  views  and 
those  of  Augustine,  see  Neander,  1.  c.  p.  474.  [The  fundamental  idea  of 

Gottschalk  was  that  of  the  divine  immutability . He  does  not  speak  of 

a  predestination  to  evil,  but  to' death.  See  Baur ,  Dogmengesch.  215.  Comp. 
Neander,  Hist.  Dogm.  448,  $</.] 

*  Epist.  synodalis  Rabani  ad  Hincmar.  given  in  Mansi  T.  xiv.  p.  914,  and 
Staudenmaier,  p.  179  :  Notum  sit  dilectioni  vestrae,  quod  quidem  gyro  vagus 
monachus,  nomine  Gothescalc,  qui  se  asserit  sacerdotem  in  nostra  parochia 
ordinatum,  de  Italia  venit  ad  nos  Moguntiam,  novas  superstitiones  et  noxiam 
doctrinam  de  praedestinatione  Dei  introducens  et  populos  in  errorem  mittens; 
dicens,  quod  praedestinatio  Dei,  sicut  in  bono,  sic  ita  et  in  malo,  et  tales  sint 
in  hoc  mundo  quidam,  qui  propter  praed estinationem  Dei,  quae  eos  cogat  in 


58 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


mortem  ire,  non  possint  ab  errore  et  peccato  se  corrigere,  quasi  Deus  eos 
fecisset  ab  initio  incorrigibiles  esse,  et  poenae  obnoxios  in  interitum  ire. — As 
regards  the  doctrine  of  Rabanus  Maurus  himself,  he  made  the  decree  of 
God  respecting  the  wicked  depend  on  his  prescience,  see  Neander ,  1.  c. 
p.  476. 

4  Mansi  T.  xiv. — On  the  outrageous  treatment  of  Gottschalk,  see  Neander , 
1.  c.  p.  478. 

6  Prudentii  Trecassini  (of  Troyes)  Epistola  ad  Hincmarum  Rhemig.  et 
Pardulum  Laudunensem  (which  was  written  about  the  year  849,  and  first 
printed  in  Lud.  Cellotii  Historia  Gotteschalci.  Par.  1655).  He  asserted  a 
twofold  predestination,  but  made  the  predestination  of  the  wicked  (reproba¬ 
tion)  depend  on  the  prescience  of  God.  He  further  maintained  that  Christ 
had  died  for  none  but  the  elect  (Matt.  xx.  28),  and  interpreted  1  Tim.  ii.  4,  as 
meaning :  vel  omnes  ex  omni  genere  hominum  [comp.  Augustine  Enchirid. 
C..103],  vel  omnes  velle  fieri  salvos,  quia  nos  facit  velle  fieri  omnes  homines 
salves.  Compare  Neander ,  1.  c.  p.  481-89. 

6  At  the  request  of  the  Emperor,  Charles  the  Bald,  he  composed  the  work, 
Be  Prsedestinatione  Dei  libri  ii.  in  which  he  expressed  himself  as  follows 
(quoted  by  Mauguin  T.  i.  p.  94,  Staudenmaier ,  p.  192)  :  Yerum  quemad- 
modum  seterna  fait  illorum  scelerum  scientia,  ita  et  definita  in  secretis  coeles- 
tibus  poenae  sententia ;  et  sicut  praescientia  veritatis  non  eos  impulit  ad  ne- 
quitiam,  ita  nec  praedestinatio  coegit  ad  poenam.  Comp.  Neander ,  1.  c. 
p.  482. 

7  Servatus  Lupus  was  abbot  of  Ferrieres.  Respecting  his  character,  and 
the  history  of  his  life,  see  Sigebert  Gemblac ,  de  Scriptt.  Eecles.  c.  94.  Stau¬ 
denmaier,  p.  188.  He  excelled  as  a  classical  scholar,  and  wrote  about  the 
year  850  :  De  Tribus  Questionibus  (1.  de  libero  arbitrio  ;  2.  de  praedestina- 
tione  bonorum  et  malorum  ;  3.  de  sanguinis  Domini  taxatione).  See  Mau¬ 
guin  T.  i.  P.  ii.  p.  9,  ss. — He  too  interpreted  those  passages  which  are 
favorable  to  the  doctrine  of  universal  redemption,  in  accordance  with  the 
scheme  of  particularism  ( Neander ,  1.  c.  p.  482,  ss.);  but  his  milder  princi¬ 
ples  induced  him  to  leave  many  points  undecided,  as  he  was  far  from  claim¬ 
ing  infallibility  ( Neander ,  p.  484.) 

8  Probably  about  the  year  851  he  addressed  a  treatise  entitled  :  Liber  de 
divina  Praedestinatione  to  Hincmar  and  Pardulus ;  see  Mauguin,  T.  i.  P.  i. 
p.  103,  ss.  He  too  did  this  at  the  request  of  the  Emperor  Charles  the  Bald. 
— The  idea  of  a  j9rcedestinatio  properly  speaking  can  not  be  applied  to  God, 
since  with  him  there  is  neither  a  future  nor  a  past.  As  moreover  sin  ever 
carries  its  own  punishment  with  itself  (de  Prae^  c.  6  :  Nullum  peccatum  est, 
quod  non  se  ipsum  puniat,  occulte  tamen  in  iiac  vita,  aperte  vero  in  altera), 
there  is  no  need  of  a  predestinated  punishment.  Evil  itself  does  not  exist 
at  all  for  God ;  accordingly  the  prescience,  as  well  as  the  predestination,  of 
evil,  on  the  part  of  God,  is  altogether  out  of  question.  Comp.  Neander,  p. 
485.  It  is,  however,  to  be  noted,  that  Erigena  only  denies  that  the  predes¬ 
tination  is  tivofold ,  and  the  idea  that  this  is  divine.  In  harmony  with  his 
whole  speculative  tendency,  he  could  not  give  up  the  view,  that,  as  God  is  the 
ground  of  all  things,  so,  too,  from  eternity  all  is  embraced  in  his  purpose :  hence 
he  says  in  De  Praedest.  18,  7  :  Praedestinavit  Deus  impios  ad  poenam  vel  ad 


§  183.  Predestination. 


59 


interitum  ;  and  in  18,  8,  he  even  speaks  of  a  definite  number  of  the  good 
and  evil.  Evil  itself  seems  to  him  to  be  adopted  into  God’s  plan  of  the  world 
(supralapsarian  ?)  ;  see  Ritter,  Gesch.  d.  Phil.  vii.  270,  sq.  Comp.  Erigena’s 
doctrine  about  sin  and  the  fall,  in  §  176,  note  4,  above;  and  De  Divis.  Nat. 
v.  36,  p.  283.  [Compare  also  the  passages  quoted  by  Jacobi  in  Neander’s 
Hist.  Dogin.  452  ;  and  the  long  and  thorough  exposition  in  Christlieb's  John 
Scotus  Erigena,  pp.  361-390.  The  points  in  his  theory  are  that  God  him¬ 
self  is  predestination  ;  since  God  is  essentially  free  will,  there  is  in  his  pre¬ 
predestination  no  necessity ;  as  God  is  one,  so  is  his  predestination  one. 
(Praedestinatio  essentialiter  de  Deo  praedicari  non  est  dubium.  Essentia 
autem  unitas.  Praedestinatio  igitur  unitas.  Unitas  dupla  non  est.  Prae¬ 
destinatio  igitur  dupla  non  est ,  ac  per  hoc  nec  gemina :  De  Divis.  Nat.  iii. 
§  5.)  He  denies  the  prescience  of  God  in  respect  to  evil,  becanse  evil  is 
nihil ,  it  is  nowhere  substantially  present.  Grace  is  universal.  Christlieb ,  ubi 
supra,  gives  an  instructive  comparison  of  his  views  with  those  of  Origen, 
Spinoza  and  Schleiermacher.] 

9  Prudentii  Ep.  Trecassini  De  Praedestin.  contra  Joann.  Scotum  liber, 
given  by  Mauguin  T.  i.  Pars.  i.  p.  197,  ss. — Flori  Magistri  et  ecclesiae  Lug- 
dunensis  Liber  adversus  Jo.  Scoti  erroneas  Definitiones;  ibid.  T.  i.  P.  i.  p. 
585.  Neander ,  p.  489.  On  Remigius  of  Lyons  compare  Neander,  1.  c.  p. 
491.  Staudenmaier,  p.  194,  ss. 

10  Synodi  Carisiacae  Capitula  4.  (given  by  Mauguin  T.  i.  P.  ii.  p.  173, 
Munscher ,  edit,  by  Von  Colin ,  p.  125.)  Cap.  i.;  Deus  omnipotens  hominem 
sine  peccato  rectum  cum  libero  arbitrio  condidit  et  in  Paradiso  posuit,  quem 
in  sanctitate  justitiae  permanere  voluit.  Homo  libero  arbitrio  male  utens 
peccavit  et  cecidit,  et  factus  est  massa  perditionis  totius  humani  generis. 
Deus  autem  bonus  et  justus  elegit  ex  eadem  massa  perditionis  secundum 
prcescientiam  suam,  quos  per  gratiam  prcedestinavit  ad  vitam,  et  vitam  illis 
praedestinavit  aeternam.  Caeteros  autem,  quos  justitiae  judicio  in  massa  per¬ 
ditionis  reliquit,  perituros  prcescivit ,  sed  non  ut  perirent  praedestinavit ;  pcenam 
autem  illis,  quia  justus  est,  praedestinavit  aeternam .  Ac  per  hoc  unam  Dei 
aprcedestinationem  tantummodo  dicimus ,  quae  ad  donum  pertinet  gratiae  aut 
ad  retribution em  justitiae.  Cap.  ii.  Libertatem  arbitrii  in  primo  homine  per- 
didimus,  quam  per  Christum  Dominum  nostrum  recepimus.  Et  habemus 
liberum  arbitrium  ad  bonum ,  praeventum  et  adjutum  gratia,  et  habemus 
liberum  arbitrium  ad  malum,  desertum  gratia.  Liberum  autem  habemus 
arbitrium,  quia  gratis  liberatum,  et  gratia  de  corrupto  sanatum.  Cap.  iii. 
Deus  omnipotens  omnes  homines  sine  exceptione  vull  salvos  fieri,  licet  non 
omnes  salventur.  Quod  autem  quidam  salvantur,  salvantis  est  donum  :  quod 
autem  quidam  pereunt,  pereuntium  est  meritum.  Cap.  iv.  Christus  Jesus 
Dominus  noster,  sicut  nullus  homo  est,  fuit  vel  erit,  cujus  natura  in  illo  as- 
sumta  non  fuerit :  ita  nullus  est,  fuit  vel  erit  homo,  pro  quo  passus  non  fuerit ; 
licet  non  omnes  passionis  ejus  mysterio  redimantur.  Quod  vero  omnes  pas- 
sionis  ejus  mysterio  non  redimuntur,  non  respicit  ad  magnitudinem  et  pretii 
copiositatem,  sed  ad  infidelium  et  ad  non  credentium  ea  fide,  quae  per  dilec- 
tionem  operatur,  respicit  partem  :  quia  poculum  humanse  salutis,  quod  con- 
fectum  est  infirmitate  nostra  et  virtute  divina,  habet  quidem  in  se  ut  omnibus 
prosit,  sed  si  non  bibitur,  non  medetur. 


60 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


11  Concilii  Valenti  ni  III.  Can.  i.-vi.  given  by  Mauguin ,  1.  c.  p.  231,  ss. 
Can,  iii.  ;  Fidenter  fatemur  praedestinationem  electorum  ad  vitam  et  prcedes- 
tinationem  impiorum  ad  mortem  :  in  electione  tamen  salvandorum  misericor- 
diam  Dei  prsecedere  meritura  bonum,  in  damnation e  autem  periturorum 
meritum  malum  prsecedere  justum  Dei  judicium.  Prsedestinatione  autem 
Deum  ea  tantum  statuisse,  quae  ipse  vel  gratuita  misericordia,  vel  justo 

judicio  facturus  erat . in  malis  vero  ipsorum  malitiam  praescisse,  quia 

ex  ipsis  est,  non  praedestinasse,  quia  ex  illo  non  est.  Poenam  sane  malum 
meritum  eornm  sequentem,  nti  Deum,  qui  omnia  prospicit,  praescivisse  et  prae¬ 
destinasse,  quia  justus  est . Verum  aliquosad  malum  pr cedes tinatos  esse 

divina  potestate ,  videlicet  ut  quasi  aliud  esse  non  possint ,  non  solum  non 
credimus ,  sed  etiam  si  sunt  qui  tantum  mali  credere  velint,  cum  omni  detes- 
tatione  sicut  Arausica  sy nodus  (vol.  i.  §  114),  illis  Anathema  dicimus. — 
According  to  Can.  iv.,  Christ  shed  his  blood  only  for  believers. — The  general 
import  of  the  canons  was  expressed  in  the  following  terms :  Quatuor  capi- 
tula,  quae  a  Concilio  fratrum  nostrorum  minus  prospecte  suscepta  sunt,  prop¬ 
ter  inutilitatem  vel  etiam  noxietatem  et  errorem  contrarium  veritati . a 

pio  auditu  fidelium  penitus  explodimus  et  ut  talia  et  similia  caveantur  per 
omnia  auctoritate  Spiritus  S.  interdicimus. — The  doctrines  of  Scotus  Erigena 
were  condemned  as  ineptae  quaestiunculae  et  aniles  paene  fabulae  (see  Neander, 
1.  c.  p.  493.)  The  six  Canones  Lingonenses  (given  by  Mauguin ,  1.  c.  p.  235, 
ss.)  were  merely  a  repetition  of  the  former  four.  Attempts  at  union  were 
made  at  the  Synod  of  Savonieres  (apud  Saponarias),  a  suburb  of  Toul, 
but  it  was  found  impossible  to  come  to  an  understanding.  See  Neander , 
p.  493. 

19  He  composed  (a.  d.  859)  a  defence  of  the  Capitula,  which  was  ad¬ 
dressed  to  the  Emperor  Charles  the  Bald,  under  the  title :  De  Praedestina- 
tione  et  libero  Arbitrio  contra  Gothescalcum  et  caeteros  Praedestinatianos 
(in  Hincmari  Opp.  ed.  Sismondi  T.  i.  p.  1-410.) 

§  184. 

FURTHER  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PREDESTINATION. 

\J.  B.  Mozley ,  Augustinian  Doctrine  of  Predestination,  Lond.,  1855.  Chapters  ix.,  x.  pp. 

250-314  on  the  Scholastic  Theories.  Hampden's  Bampton  Lectures,  3d.  ed.,  1848; 

Lect.  iv.  pp.  153-207.  Neander ,  Hist.  Dogm.  448,  sg.] 

Among  the  scholastics,  Anselm,1  Peter  Lombard ,9  and  Thomas 
Aquinas ,3  in  particular,  endeavored  to  retain  Augustine’s  doctrine  of 
an  unconditional  election,  though  with  many  limitations.  The  en¬ 
tire  religious  tendency  of  Bonaventura  also  kept  him  from  restricting 
the  grace  of  God,  even  when  he  maintained/  for  practical  interests, 
that  the  ground  of  his  mercy  was  to  be  found  in  the  measure  of 
man’s  susceptibility  to  that  which  is  good.4  But  this  idea  was  also 
taken  up  by  some,  who  knew  how  to  make  use  of  it  in  favor  of  a 
trivial  theory  of  the  meritoriousness  of  works,  and  Augustinianism 


§  184.  Predestination — Continued. 


61 


was  thus  perverted  into  a  new  Semipelagianism  by  Scotus  and  his 
followers.5  Accordingly,  Thomas  of  Bradwardine  (a  second  Gott- 
schalk,  living  in  the  fourteenth  century)  found  it  necessary  to  com¬ 
mence  a  new  contest  in  defence  of  Augustine  and  his  system.6  The 
forerunners  of  the  Reformation,  Wycliffe ,  Savonarola ,  and  Wessel , 
were  also  led  by  a  living  conviction  of  man's  dependence  on  God,  to 
return  to  the  more  profound  fundamental  principles  of  Augustinian- 
ism,  though  the  last  of  these  three  urged  the  necessity  of  a  free  appro¬ 
priation  of  divine  grace  on  the  part  of  man,  as  a  conditio  sine  qua 
non.7 

1  Anselm  composed  a  separate  treatise  on  this  subject,  entitled  :  De  Con¬ 
cordia  Prsescientise  et  Prsedestinationis  nec  non  Gratise  Dei  c.  libero  Arbitrio. 
in  Opp.  p.  123-34.  (150-164.)  He  proceeded  on  the  assumption  that  no 
difference  exists  between  prescience  and  predestination.  P.  ii.  c.  10:  Dubi- 
tari  non  debet,  quia  ejus  prsedestinatio  et  prsescientia  non  discordant,  sed 
sicut  prsescit,  ita  quoque  praedestinat ;  be  referred,  however,  the  one  as  well 
as  the  other,  in  the  first  instance,  to  that  which  is  good,  c.  9  :  Bona  specia- 
lius  praescire  et  praedestinare  dicitur,  quia  in  illis  facit,  quod  sunt  et  quod 
bona  sunt,  in  malis  autem  non  nisi  quod  sunt  essentialiter,  non  quod  mala 
sunt.  Comp.  P.  1.  c.  7.  But  he  too  differed  in  some  points  from  Augustine. 
Thus  be  called  the  proposition :  non  esse  liberum  arbitrium  nisi  ad  mala, 
absurd  (ii.  c.  8),  and  endeavored  to  bold  the  doctrine  of  the  freedom  of  the 
will  together  with  that  of  predestination.  But  the  freedom  of  the  will,  in 
bis  opinion,  does  not  consist  in  a  mere  liberty  of  choice,  for  in  that  case  the 
virtuous  would  be  less  free  than  the  vicious.  On  the  contrary,  the  rational 
creatures  received  it — ad  servandam  acceptam  a  Deo  rectitudinem.  Anselm 
also  showed  that  Scripture  is  favorable  to  both  systems  (that  of  grace,  and 
that  of  the  freedom  of  the  will),  and  then  continued  as  follows :  Quoniam 
ergo  in  sacra  Scriptura  qusedam  invenimus,  quse  soli  gratise  favere  videntur , 
et  qusedam,  quse  solum  liberum  arbitrium  statuere  sine  gratia  putantur: 
fuerunt  quidam  superbi,  qui  totam  virtutem  et  efficaciam  in  sola  libertate 
arbitrii  consistere  sunt  arbitrati,  et  sunt  nostro  tempore  multi  [?],  qui  liberum 
arbitrium  esse  aliquid  penitus  desperant. — Therefore,  cap.  14  :  Nemo  servat 
rectitudinem  acceptam  nisi  volendo,  velle  autem  illam  aliquis  nequit  nisi 
habendo.  Habere  vero  illam  nullatenus  valet  nisi  per  gratiam.  Sicut  ergo 
illam  nullus  accipit  nisi  gratia  prseveniente,  ita  nullus  earn  servat  nisi  eadem 
gratia  subsequente.  Compare  also  his  treatise  De  libero  Arbitrio,  and 
Mohler ,  Kleine  Schriften,  i.  p.  170,  ss.  [Comp.  Neander ,  Hist.  Dogm.  507  : 
In  Anselm  the  freedom  of  contingency  appears  as  a  necessary  transition  stage 
of  development:  Hoc  propositum,  secundum  quod  vocati  sunt  sancti,  in 
seternitate  in  qua  non  est  prseteritum  vel  futurum,  sed  tantum  praesens,  im- 
mutabile  est,  sed  in  ipsis  hominibus  ex  libertate  arbitrii  aliquando  est  mu- 
tabile.] 

3  Sent.  Lib.  i.  Dist.  40.  A :  Praedestinatio  est  gratise  prseparatio,  quse  sine 
prsescientia  esse  non  potest.  Potest  autem  sine  prcedestinatione  esse  prce- 
scientia.  Prsedestinatione  quippe  Deus  ea  prsescivit,  quse  fuerat  ipse  factu- 
rus,  sed  prsescivit  Deus  etiam  quse  non  esset  ipse  facturus,  i.  e.f  omnia  mala. 


62 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


Prsedestinavit  eos  quos  elegit,  reliquos  vero  reprobavit,  i.  e .,  ad  mortem  aeter- 
nam  praescivit  peccaturos.  On  the  election  of  individuals,  see  dist.  4G,  ss., 
and  .compare  47. 

3  Summae  P.  i.,  Qu.  23,  Art.  1,  ss.,  (quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by  Von 
Colin ,  p.  151-154.)  He  there  distinguished  between  electio  and  dilectio. — 
God  will  that  all  men  should  be  saved  antecedenter,  but  not  consequenter 
(OeXrjiia  Trporjyovgevov  and  enopevov.) — Respecting  the  causa  meritoria, 
sec  Art.  5.  [. Aquinas  makes  Prcedestinatio ,  to  be — pars  providentiae  respectu 
eorum  qui  divinitus  ordinantur  in  aeternam  salutem ;  and  Peprobatio ,  pars 
providentiae  respectu  illorum  qui  ab  hoc  fine  decidunt  (Art.  2).  In  Art.  4  : 
Dilectio  prcesupponitur  electioni  secundum  rationem,  et  electio  prcedestina- 
tioni.  Unde  omnes  praedestinati  sunt  electi  et  dilecti. — On  the  question 
whether  prevision  of  merit  is  the  cause  of  predestination  (Art.  5),  he  dis¬ 
tinguishes  between  the  effect  of  predestination,  in  particulari ,  and  in  com- 
muni ;  and  of  the  latter  says — impossibile  est  quod  totus  praedestinationis 
effectus  in  communi  habeat  aliquam  causam  ex  parte  nostra :  quia  quidquid 
est  in  homine  ordinans  ipsum  in  salutem,  comprehenditur  totum  sub  effectu 
praedestinationis,  etiam  ipsa  groeparatio  ad  gratiam.~\ 

4  Comment,  in  Sent.  Lib.  i.  Dist.  40,  Art.  2,  Qu.  1,  (quoted  by  Munsclier , 
edit,  by  Von  Colin ,  p.  154). — The  free  will,  as  a  causa  contingens,  is  in¬ 
cluded  in  the  prescience.  \Bonaventura  raises  the  question,  An  praedestina- 
tio  inferat  salutis  necessitatem  ?  and  replies — quod  praedestinatio  non  infert 
necessitatem  saluti,  nec  infert  necessitatem  libero  arbitrio.  Quoniam  prce¬ 
destinatio  non  est  causa  salutis ,  nise  includendo  merita ,  et  ita  salvando  libe¬ 
rum  arbitrium.  Munscher ,  ubi  supra.] 

6  Duns  Scotus  in  Sent.  L.  i.  Dist.  40.  in  Resol.  (quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit, 
by  Von  Colin ,  p.  155)  :  Divina  autem  voluntas  circa  ipsas  creaturas  libere 
et  contingenter  se  habet.  Quocirca  contingenter  salvandos  praedestinat,  et 

posset  eosdem  non  praedestinare.  Dist.  17.  Qu.  1.  in  Resol . Actus 

meritorius  est  in  potestate  hominis,  supposita  generali  influentia,  si  habuerit 
liberi  arbitrii  usum  et  gratiam,  sed  completio  in  ratione  meriti  non  est  in 
potestate  hominis  nisi  dispositive,  sic  tamen  dispositive,  quod  ex  dispositione 
divina  nobis  revelata.  [ Duns  Scotus  considers  predestination  under  a  two¬ 
fold  aspect — as  an  act  of  the  divine  will,  and  of  the  divine  intellect :  in  the 
latter  sense  it  is  the — praecognitio,  quam  habet  Deus  salutis  electorum  ;  quae 
quidem  praecognitio  concomitatur  et  consequitur  electionem.] 

6  Thomas  of  Dradwardine ,  surnamed  Doctor  profundus,  was  born  at 
Hartfield,  in  the  county  of  Sussex  (about  the  year  1290),  well  read  in  the 
works  of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  was  master  of  Merton  College,  confessor  of 
King  Edward  III.,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  died  a.  d.  1349.  In  his 
work  entitled :  De  Causa  Dei  contra  Pelagium  et  de  Virtute  Causarum,  ad 
suos  Mertonenses,  lib.  iii.  (edited  by  Savil.  Lond.  1618,  fob),  extracts  from 
which  are  given  by  Schrockh,  Kirchengeschichte  xxxiv.  p.  227  ss.  he  com¬ 
plained,  that  almost  the  whole  world  had  fallen  into  the  errors  of  Pelagian- 
ism.  In  his  principles  he  agreed,  on  the  whole,  with  Augustine  and  Anselm, 
though  some  of  his  notions  appear  more  rigid  than  those  of  Augustine  him¬ 
self.  Among  other  things,  he  lowered  the  free  will  of  man  so  much,  as  to 
represent  it  as  a  servant  who  is  following  its  mistress  (i.  e.}  the  Divine  will), 


63 


§  185.  Appropriation  of  Grace. 

0 
t 

an  idea  which  can  not  hut  he  called  mechanical.  Comp.  Schrockh ,  1.  c. 
Munscher ,  edit,  by  Von  Colin,  pp.  156,  157.)  u  That  these  repulsive 
( wholly  necessarian )  positioyis  were  so  unnoticed  and  unopposed ,  can  only  be 
explained  by  the  fact ,  that  the  theologians  of  the  14 th  century  were  so  ab¬ 
sorbed  in  fruitless  subtleties ,  that  they  had  hardly  any  interest  left  in  those 
parts  of  theology  which  are  of  chief  practical  importance .”  Gieseler  in 
Dogmengesch.  524.  [See  Neander ,  Hist.  Dogm.  609.] 

7  Wy  cliff e ,  Trialog.  Lib.  ii.  c.  14  :  Yidetur  mihi  probabile. . .  .quod  Dens 
necessitat  creaturas  singulas  activas  ad  quemlibet  actum  suum.  Et  sic  sunt 
aliqui  prcedestinati ,  h.  e.  post  laborem  ordinati  ad  gloriam,  aliqui  prcesciti , 
h.  e.  post  vitam  miseram  ad  poenam  perpetuam  ordinati.  Compare  also  what 
follows  where  this  idea  is  more  fully  discussed  in  a  scholastico-speculative 
manner.  [On  Wy  cliff e ,  comp.  Neander,  Church  Hist,  and  Hist.  Dogm.  610. 
JBohringer,  p.  139.  Neander  says,  “  His  doctrine  of  ideas  is  developed  in 
opposition  to  the  nominalist  view  of  the  relation  of  thought  to  being,  and 
of  an  infinite  series  of  possibilities,  and  leads  him,  according  to  his  own 
strict  logic,  to  an  unconditional  predestination.  God’s  omnipotence  and  the 
actual  creation  are  counterparts  :  Sicut  Deus  ad  intra  nihil  potest  producere, 
nisi  absolute  necessario  illud  producat,  sic  nihil  ad  extra  potest  producere, 

nisi  pro  suo  tempore  producat . Deus  nihil  intelligit  nisi  quod  existit, 

dum  potest  existere,  et  sic  omne  quod  existere  potest  existit.]  Wessel  views 
the  atonement,  sometimes  as  general,  and  again  as  limited.  Christ  suffered 
for  all,  but  his  sufferings  will  avail  to  any  man  only  as  far  as  he  shcnvs 
susceptibility  for  them ;  the  susceptibility  itself  is  proportioned  to  the 
amount  of  his  inward  purity,  and  to  the  degree  in  which  his  life  is  conform¬ 
able  to  that  of  Christ:  De  Magnit.  Pass.  c.  10,  quoted  by  Ullmann ,  pp. 
271,  272. — On  Savonarola' s  more  liberal  views  on  the  doctrine  of  predes¬ 
tination,  see  Rudelbach ,  p.  361  ss.  and  Meier ,  p.  269  ss. 


§  185. 

APPROPRIATION  OP  GRACE. 

Hettberg,  Scholasticorum  Placita  de  Gratia  et  Merito.  Gottingen,  1836. 

Though  Augustine  had  demonstrated,  with  logical  strictness, 
the  natural  corruption  of  mankind,  unconditional  election  by  the 
free  grace  of  God,  and  the  efficacy  of  that  grace,  he  yet  gave  no 
precise  statements  about  the  appropriation  of  the  grace  of  God  on 
the  part  of  man,  justification,  sanctification,  etc.1  It  was  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  this  very  deficiency  that  Semipelagianism  again  found 
its  way  into  the  Church.  Thomas  Aquinas  understood  by  justifica¬ 
tion,  not  only  the  acquittal  of  the  sinner  from  punishment,  hut 
also  the  communication  of  divine  life  (infusio  gratias)  from  the  hand 
of  God,  which  takes  place  at  the  same  time.3  It  was  also  possible 
to  advance  very  different  definitions  of  the  idea  of  grace  ;  some  re- 


64 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


garded  it  (from  the  theological  point  of  view)  as  an  attribute,  or  an  act 
of  God,  while  others  looked  upon  it  (in  its  bearing  upon  anthropol¬ 
ogy)  as  a  religious  and  moral  energy,  working  in  man,  and  forming 
a  part  of  the  essence  of  regeneration.  Hence  Peter  Lombard  and 
Thomas  Aquinas  distinguished  between  gratia  gratis  dans ,  gratia 
gratis  data ,  and  gratia  gratum  faciens ,  the  last  of  which  was 
further  divided  into  gratia  operans ,  and  gratia  co-operans  (praeve- 
niens  and  comitans.)3  Concerning  the  certainty  of  divine  grace, 
not  only  Thomas  Aquinas,  but  also  Tauter ,  still  entertained  doubts;4 
while  the  mystics,  generally  speaking,  attempted  to  point  out  more 
definitely  the  various  steps  and  degrees  of  the  higher  life  wrought 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  regenerate,  and  to  describe  in  detail  the 
inward  processes  of  enlightening,  awakening,  etc.b  On  the  other 
hand,  the  fanatical  sects  of  the  middle  ages,  inclining  to  pantheism, 
lost  sight  of  the  serious  character  of  sanctification  in  the  fantastic 
intoxication  of  feeling.6 

1  See  vol.  i.  §  114. 

2  Thomas ,  Summ.  P.  ii.  1.  Qu.  100.  Art.  12  (quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit, 
by  Yon  Colin,  p.  147.)  :  Justificatio  primo  ac  proprie  dicitur  factio  justifies , 
secundario  vero  et  quasi  improprie  potest  dici  justificatio  significatio  justitiae, 
vel  dispositio  ad  justitiam.  Sed  si  loquamur  de  justification  proprie  dicta, 
justitia  potest  accipi  prout  est  in  habitu,  vel  prout  est  in  actu.  Et  secundum 
hoc  justificatio  dupliciter  dicitur,  uno  quidem  modo,  secundum  quod  homo 
fit  justus  adipiscens  habitum  justitiae,  alio  vero  modo,  secundum  quod  opera 
justifies  operatur ,  ut  secundum  hoc  justificatio  nihil  aliud  sit  quam  justitioe 
executio.  Justitia  autem,  sicut  et  alise  virtutes ,  potest  accipi  et  acquisita ,  et 

infusa . Acquisita  quidem  causatur  ex  operibus,  sed  infusa  causatur  ab 

ipso  Deo  per  ejus  gratiam.  Comp.  Qu.  113.  Art.  1,  quoted  by  Munscher , 
edit,  by  Yon  Colin,  1.  c.  [Comp.  Meander ,  Ilist.  Dogm.  574.] 

3  Peter  Lombard ,  Sent.  ii.  Dist.  27.  D.  [The  Lombard  says  (ii.  d.  26)  : 
Operans  gratia  est,  quae  praevenit  voluntatem  bonam,  ea  enim  liberatur  et 
praeparatur  hominis  voluntas,  ut  sit  bona,  bonamque  efficaciter  velit.  Co- 
operans  vero  gratia  voluntatem  jam  bonam  sequitur  adjuvando.]  Thomas 
Aquinas ,  Summ.  P.  iii.  Qu.  2.  Art.  10  (quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by  Yon 
Colin,  p.  140  ss.)  According  to  Aquinas ,  God  works  good  in  us  without 
our  cooperation,  but  not  without  our  consent :  Summa  P.  i.  qu.  55,  Art.  4  :  j 
Yirtus  infusa  causatur  in  nobis  a  Deo  sine  nobis  agentibus,  non  tamen  sine 
nobis  consentientibus.  Comp.  Ritter ,  viii.  341.  \Aquinas ,  P.  II,  1.  qu.  109, 
Art.  6  :  Conversio  hominis  ad  Deum  fit  quidem  per  liberum  arbitrium,  et 
secundum  hoc  homini  praecipitur  quod  se  ad  Deum  convertat.  Sed  liberum 
arbitrium  ad  Deum  converti  non  potest,  nisi  Deo  ipsum  ad  se  convertente. — 
Hominis  est  praepare  animam,  quia  hoc  facit  per  liberum  arbitrium  ;  sed 
tamen  hoc  non  facit  sine  auxilio  Dei  moventis  et  ad  se  attrahentis.]  Man’s 
cooperation  is  much  more  insisted  upon  by  Duns  Scotus  than  by  Thomas, 
Sentent.  lib.  iii.  dist.  34,  35  :  Deus  dedit  habitum  voluntatis,  semper  assistit 
voluntati  et  habitui  ad  actus  sibi  convenientes.  We  are  not  to  conceive  of 


§  185.  Appropriation  of  Grace. 


65 


grace  as  infused  into  man,  like  fire  into  a  stick  of  wood :  see  Ritter ,  ubi  su¬ 
pra,  372.  Baur ,  Lelirb.  189.  Gieseler ,  Dogmengesch.  523.  [Scotus  could 
not  admit  an  unconditional  predestination.  The  differences  of  these  teachers 
were  perpetuated  in  the  Franciscans  and  Dominicans. — The  gratia  gratis 
dans  is  the  efficient  principle  ;  the  gratia  gratis  data  is  the  grace  imparted — 
virtue  in  man. — On  the  views  of  Robert  Pulleyn ,  see  Neander ,  Ilist.  Dogm. 
525.  On  Hugo  of  St.  Victor ,  see  Schopff's  Aurora,  iv.  44.] 

4  Aquinas  supposed  (Summa  P.  ii.  1,  Qu.  112,  Art.  5)  a  threefold  way  in 
which  man  could  ascertain  whether  he  was  a  subject  of  divine  grace  or  not; 
1.  By  direct  revelation  on  the  part  of  God  ;  2.  By  himself  (certitudinaliter) ; 
3.  By  certain  indications  (conjecturalitur  per  aliqua  signa.)  But  the  last 
two  were,  in  his  opinion,  uncertain ;  as  for  the  first,  God  very  seldom  makes 
use  of  it,  and  only  in  particular  cases  (revelat  Deus  hoc  aliquando  aliquibus 
ex  speciali  privilegio.)  [. Alexander  of  Hales  contended  for  a  special  knowl¬ 
edge  on  this  point :  Scientia  affectus  per  experientiam  rei  in  affectu.  See 
Neander ,  Hist.  Dogm.  586.]  Luther  denounced  this  notion  of  the  uncer¬ 
tainty  of  man  being  in  a  state  of  grace  (in  his  Comment,  upon  Gal.  iv.  6), 
as  a  dangerous  and  sophistical  doctrine.  Nevertheless  Tauler  entertained 
the  same  opinion,  Predigten,  vol.  i.  p.  67  :  No  man  on  earth  is  either  so 
good,  or  so  blessed,  or  so  well  informed  in  holy  doctrine,  as  to  know  whether 
he  is  made  a  subject  of  the  grace  of  God  or  not,  unless  it  be  made  known  to 
him  by  a  special  revelation  of  God.  If  a  man  will  but  examiue  himself,  it 
will  be  evident  enough  to  him  that  he  does  not  know  ;  thus  the  desire  of 
knowing  proceeds  from  ignorance,  as  if  a  child  would  know  what  a  sove¬ 
reign  has  in  his  heart.  Accordingly,  as  he  who  is  diseased  in  body  is  to 
believe  his  physician,  who  knows  the  nature  of  his  disease  better  than  him¬ 
self,  so  man  must  trust  in  some  modest  confessor. 

6  According  to  Bonaventura,  the  grace  of  God  manifests  itself  in  a  three¬ 
fold  way.  1.  In  habitus  virtutum  ;  2.  In  habitus  donorum  ;  3.  In  habitus 
beatitudinum  (Breviloquium  v.  4,  ss.,  comp.  Richard  of  St.  Victor ,  quoted 
by  Engelhard t,  p.  30,  ss.).  A  lively  picture  of  the  mystical  doctrine  of  sal¬ 
vation  is  given  by  the  author  of  the  work,  Btichlein  von  der  Deutschen 
Theologie,  where  he  shows  how  Adam  must  die,  and  Christ  live  in  us.  In 
his  opinion,  purification ,  illumination ,  and  union ,  are  the  three  principal  de¬ 
grees.  The  last  in  particular  (unio  mystica)  is  to  be  brought  forward  as  the 
aim  and  crown  of  the  whole.  According  to  ch.  25  of  this  work,  it  (union) 
consists  in  this :  “  that  we  are  pure,  single-minded,  and,  in  the  pursuit  of 
truth,  are  entirely  one  with  the  one  eternal  will  of  God ;  or  that  we  have  not 
any  will  at  all  of  our  own  ;  or  that  the  will  of  the  creature  flows  into  the  will 
of  the  eternal  Creator ,  and  is  so  blended  with  it ,  and  annihilated  by  it ,  that 
the  eternal  will  alone  wills ,  acts}  and  suffers  in  us.v  Comp.  ch.  30.  “  Be¬ 

hold,  man  in  that  state  wills  or  desires  nothing  but  good  as  such,  and  for  no 
other  reason  but  because  it  is  good,  and  not  because  it  is  this  thing  or  that, 
nor  because  it  pleases  one  or  displeases  another,  nor  because  it  is  pleasant  or 
unpleasant,  sweet  or  bitter,  etc.... for  all  selfishness,  egoism,  and  man’s 
own  interest  have  ceased,  and  fallen  into  oblivion  ;  no  longer  is  it  said,  I  love 
myself,  or  I  love  you,  or  such  and  such  a  thing.  And  if  you  would  ask  Charity, 
what  dost  thou  love?  she  would  say,  I  love  good.  And  why  ?  she  would  say, 


66 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


because  it  is  good.  And  because  it  is  good,  it  is  also  good,  and  right,  and  well 
done,  that  it  may  be  right  well  desired  and  loved.  And  if  my  own  self  were  bet¬ 
ter  than  God ,  then  I  ought  to  love  it  above  God.  On  that  account  God  does 
not  love  himself  as  God,  but  as  the  highest  good.  For  if  God  knew  any¬ 
thing  better  than  God,  etc.  (comp.  vol.  i.  §  168,  note  3) . .  .  .Behold,  thus  it 
ought  to  be,  and  really  is,  in  a  godly  person,  or  in  a  truly  sanctified  man,  for 
otherwise  he  could  neither  be  godly  nor  sanctified.”  Ch.  39.  “Now,  it  might 
be  asked,  what  man  is  godly  or  sanctified  ?  The  reply  is,  he  who  is  illumi¬ 
nated  and  enlightened  with  the  eternal  or  divine  light,  and  kindled  with 
eternal  or  divine  love,  is  a  godly  or  sanctified  person.  .  .  .  We  ought  to  know , 
that  light  and  knowledge  are  nothing ,  and  are  good  for  nothing ,  without 
charity .”  (He  distinguishes,  however,  between  the  true  light  and  the  false, 
between  true  love  and  false  love),  etc.  Tauler  expressed  himself  in  similar 
terms  (Predigten  i.  p.  117)  :  “He  who  has  devoted  himself  to  God,  and  sur¬ 
rendered  himself  prisoner  to  him  for  ever,  may  expect  that  God,  in  his  turn, 
will  surrender  himself  prisoner  to  him ;  and,  overcoming  all  obstacles,  and 
opening  all  prisons,  God  will  lead  man  to  the  divine  liberty,  viz.,  to  himself. 
Then  man  will,  in  some  respects,  be  rather  a  divine  being  than  a  natural 
man.  And  if  you  touch  man  you  touch  God  ;  he  who  would  see  and  con¬ 
fess  the  former,  must  see  and  confess  him  in  God.  Here  all  wounds  are 
healed,  and  all  pledges  are  remitted ;  here  the  transition  is  made  from  the 
creature  to  God,  from  the  natural  being,  in  some  respect,  to  a  divine  being. 
This  loving  reciprocation  is  above  our  apprehension,  it  is  above  all  sensible 
or  perceptible  ways,  and  above  natural  methods.  Those  who  are  within, 
and  are  what  we  have  described,  are  in  much  the  nearest  and  best  way,  and 
in  the  path  to  much  the  greatest  blessedness,  where  they  will  ever  enjoy  God 
in  the  highest  possible  degree.  It  is  far  better  to  remain  silent  on  those 
points  than  to  speak  of  them,  better  to  perceive,  or  to  feel,  than  to  under¬ 
stand  them.” — Susof  speaking  of  the  unio  mystica,  in  his  treatise  entitled, 
Buclilein  von  der  ewigen  Weisheit,  Lib.  ii.  c.  7,  expressed  himself  poetically 
as  follows  (quoted  by  Diepenbrock ,  p.  275):  “0  thou  gentle  and  lovely  flower 
of  the  field,  thou  beloved  bride  in  the  embraces  of  the  soul,  loving  with  a 
pure  love,  how  happy  is  he  who  ever  truly  felt  what  it  is  to  possess  thee ; 
but  how  strange  is  it  to  hear  a  man  [talk  of  thee]  who  does  not  know  thee, 
and  whose  heart  and  mind  are  yet  carnal !  O  thou  precious,  thou  incompre¬ 
hensible  good,  this  hour  is  a  happy  one,  this  present  time  is  a  sweet  one,  in 
which  I  must  open  to  thee  a  secret  wound  which  thy  sweet  love  has  inflicted 
upon  my  heart.  Lord,  thou  knowest  that  sharing  in  love  is  like  water  in 
fire  ;  thou  knowest  that  true,  heartfelt  love,  can  not  endure  a  duality.  0 
thou !  the  only  Lord  of  my  heart  and  soul,  therefore  my  heart  desires  that 
thou  shouldst  love  me  with  a  special  love,  and  that  thy  divine  eyes  would 
take  a  special  delight  in  me.  0  Lord  !  thou  hast  so  many  hearts  which 
love  thee  with  a  heartfelt  love,  and  prevail  much  with  thee  ;  alas  !  thou 
tender  and  dear  Lord !  how  is  it  then  with  me  ?”  Buysbroek  treated 
wery  fully  of  -the  mystical  doctrine  of  salvation  (quoted  by  Engelhardt ,  p. 

*  On  the  further  views  of  ,Sueo  as  to  the  method  of  salvation,  and  its  three  degrees 
(purgatio,  illuminatio,  perfectio),  see  Schmidt,  ubi  supra,  48.  To  float  in  divinity,  as  the 
•eagle  in  the  air,  is  the  end  of  his.  aspirations,  p.  50. 


§  186.  Faith  and  Good  Works. 


67 


190,  i  s.)  In  liis  opinion,  man  attains  unto  God  by  an  active,  an  inward,  and 
a  contemplative  life.  The  first  has  regard  rather  to  the  external  (exercises 
of  penance.)  Only  when  man  loves ,  do  *his  desires  take  an  opposite  direc¬ 
tion.  When  our  spirits  turn  entirely  to  the  light,  viz.,  God,  all  will  be  made 
perfect  in  us,  and  be  restored  to  its  primitive  state.  We  are  united  to  the 
light,  and,  by  the  grace  of  God,  are  born  again,  of  grace,  above  nature. 
The  eternal  light  itself  brings  forth  four  lights  in  us  :  1.  The  natural  light 
of  heaven,  which  we  have  in  common  with  the  animals;  2.  The  light  of 
the  highest  heaven,  by  which  we  behold,  as  it  were,  with  our  bodily  senses, 
the  glorified  body  of  Christ  and  the  saints  ;  3.  The  spiritual  light  (the  nat¬ 
ural  intelligence  of  angels  and  men)  ;  4.  The  light  of  the  grace  of  God. — 
Concerning  the  three  unities  in  man,  the  three  advents  of  Christ,  the  four 
processions,  the  three  meetings,  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  etc.,  as  well  as 
the  various  degrees  of  the  contemplative  life,  the  degrees  of  love,  see  Engel- 
hardt ,  1.  c. — Savonarola  described  (in  his  Sermons)  the  state  of  grace  as  an 
act  of  sealing  on  the  part  of  the  Lord  ;  Jesus  Christ,  the  crucified  one,  is 
the  seal  with  which  the  sinner  is  sealed  after  he  has  done  penance,  and  re¬ 
ceived  a  new  heart.  The  billows  of  temporal  afflictions  can  not  quench  the 
fire  of  this  love,  etc. ;  nevertheless,  grace  does  not  work  irresistibly,  man 
may  resist,  as  well  as  lose  it.  Respecting  Savonarola’s  views  on  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  uncertainty  of  a  state  of  grace,  see  Rudelbach ,  p.  364,  and 
Meier ,  p.  272. 

8  See  the  Episcopal  letter  quoted  by  Mosheim,  p.  256  :  Item  dicunt,  quod 
homo  possit  sic  uniri  Deo,  quod  ipsius  sit  idem  posse  ac  velle  et  operari 
quodcunque,  quod  est  ipsius  Dei.  Item  credunt,  se  esse  Deum  per  naturam 
sine  distinctione.  Item,  quod  sint  in  eis  omnes  perfectiones  divinse,  ita  quod 
dicunt,  se  esse  seternos,  et  in  seternitate.  Item  dicunt,  se  omnia  creasse,  et 
plus  creasse,  quam  Deus.  Item,  quod  nullo  indigent  nec  Deo  nec  Deitate. 
Item,  quod  sunt  impeccabiles,  unde  quemeunque  actum  peccati  faciunt  sine 
peccato  (compare  vol.  i.  §  165,  note  2.) — The  opinions  of  Master  Eckert  on 
on  this  question  were  also  pantheistic  :  Nos  transformamur  totaliter  in  Deum 
et  convertimur  in  eum  simili  modo,  sicut  in  sacramento  convertitur  panis  in 
Corpus  Christi :  sic  ego  convertor  in  eum,  quod  ipse  operatur  in  me  suum 
esse.  Unum  non  simile  per  viventem  Deum  verum  est,  quod  nulla  ibi  est 
'distinctio.  (Cf.  Raynald ,  Annal.  ad  a.  1329.)  He  was  opposed  by  Gerson  ; 
see  Hundeshagen ,  p.  66. 


§  186. 

FAITH  AND  GOOD  WORKS.  THE  MERITORIOUSNESS  OF  THE  LATTER. 

Though  many  of  the  scholastics  were  inclined  to  Pelagianism,  yet 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  had  to  he  retained  as  Pauline. 
But  then  the  difficult  question  was,  what  we  are  to  understand  by 
faith.  J ohn  Damascenus  had  already  represented  faith  as  consisting 
in  two  things,  viz.,  a  belief  in  the  truth  of  the  doctrines,  and  a  firm 
confidence  in  the  promises  of  God.1  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  also  de- 


68 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


fined  faith,  on  the  one  hand,  as  cognitio ,  and  on  the  other,  as  affec- 
tus .a  And  lastly,  the  distinction  made  by  Peter  Lombard  between 
credere  Deum ,  credere  Deo ,  and  credere  in  Deum s  shows  that  he  too 
acknowledged  a  difference  in  the  usage  of  the  term  “  faith."  Only 
the  last  kind  of  faith  was  regarded  by  the  scholastics  as  fides  justifi- 
cans,  fides  formata.4  The  most  eminent  theologians  both  perceived 
and  taught  that  this  kind  of  faith  must  of  itself  produce  good 
works.5  Nevertheless,  the  theory  of  the  meritoriousness  of  good  works 
was  developed,  in  connection  with  ecclesiastical  practice.  Though 
the  distinction  made  b y  Aquinas  between  meritum  ex  condigno  and 
meritum  ex  congruo ,  seemed  to  limit  human  claims,  yet  it  only 
secured  the  appearance  of  humility.6  But  the  evil  grew  still  worse, 
when  the  notion  of  supererogatory  works,  which  may  be  imputed  to 
those  who  have  none  of  their  own,  became  one  of  the  most  danger¬ 
ous  supports  of  the  sale  of  indulgences.7  There  were,  however, 
even  at  that  time,  some  who  strenuously  opposed  such  abuses.8 

1  De  Fide  Orth.  iv.  10  :  'H  pevroc  Trior  eg  dinX?)  eonv  eon  yap  Trior  eg  it; 
atcorjg  (Rom.  x.  17).  ’A novovreg  yap  rcbv  Oe'nnv  yparp&v,  morevopev  ry 
dcdaorcaXia  rov  ayiov  rrvevparog.  A vrrj  de  reXeiovrai  rraoi  rolg  vopoOerrj- 
dsloiv  ino  rov  Xpcorov,  epyq>  ruorevovoa,  evoe(3ovoa  real  rag  evroXag 

rrpdrrovaa  rov  avauaivioavrog  i]pag . .  "E on  de  rraXiv  rrioreg  eXttl^o- 

pevcjv  vrrooraoig  (Hebr.  xi.  1),  rrpaypdrorov  eXey^og  ov  fiXenopevcov,  rj 
adioranrog  teal  ddidapirog  eXrrlg  rcbv  re  vmo  deov  i]plv  enrjyyeXpevoiv ,  nal 
r^g  rd)V  airijoeatv  i]pu)V  e'rirv'xiag.  'H  pev  ovv  irpdrrj  rrjg  rjperepag  yvdprjg 
earl ,  i]  de  devrepa  rcbv  xapiopo'rtov  rov  nvevparog. 

3  On  the  difference  between  these  two  terms,  compare  Liebner ,  p.  435. 
[ Hugo  St.  Victor :  De  Sacramentis,  liber  1,  part  x.  cap.  3:  Duo  sunt,  in 
quibus  fides  constat :  cognitio  et  affectus ,  i.  e .,  constantia  vel  firmitas  credendi. 
In  altero  constat  quia  ipsa  illud  est ;  in  altero  constat,  quia  ipsa  in  illo  est. 
In  affectu  enim  substantia  fidei  invenitur ;  in  cognitione  materia.  Aliud 
enim  est  fides,  qua  creditur,  et  aliud,  quod  creditur.  In  affectu  invenitur 
fides,  in  cognitione  id,  quod  fide  creditur.] 

8  Sent.  L.  iii.  Dist.  23,  D :  Aliud  est  enim  credere  in  Deum,  aliud  credere 
Deo,  aliud  credere  Deum.  Credere  Deo,  est  credere  vera  essa  qum  loquitur, 
quod  et  mali  faciunt.  Et  nos  credimus  homini,  sed  non  in  hominem.  Cre¬ 
dere  Deum,  est  credere  quod  ipse  sit  Deus,  quod  etiam  mali  faciunt  [this 
kind  of  faith  was  sometimes  called  the  faith  of  devils,  according  to  James  ii. 
19].  Credere  in  Deum  est  credendo  amare,  credendo  in  eum  ire,  credendo 
ei  adhgerere  et  ejus  membris  incorporari.  Per  hanc  fidem  justificatur  impius, 
ut  deinde  ipsa  fides  incipiat  per  dilectionem  operari. — The  same  holds  true 
of  the  phrase,  credere  Christum,  etc.  Comp.  Lit.  C. 

4  Generally  speaking,  the  scholastics  made  a  difference  between  subjective 
and  objective  faith,  fides  qua ,  and  fides  quee  creditur  ( Peter  Lombard ,  1.  c.) 
As  a  subdivision,  we  find  mentioned  fides  formata,  which  works  by  love. 
Faith  without  love  remains  informis,  see  Lombard ,  1.  c.  :  Thomas  Aquinas , 
Summ.  P.  ii.  2,  Qu.  4,  A§t.  3  (quoted  by  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  p.  175.) 


§  186.  Faith  and  Good  Works. 


69 


So,  too,  a  distinction  was  made  between  developed  and  undeveloped  faith, 
(tides  explicita  et  implicita)  ;  the  latter  is  sufficient,  see  Summa,  ii.  Qu.  1, 
Art  7  :  Qu.  2,  Art.  6  and  7. 

‘  Thus  Peter  Lombard  said,  1.  c. :  Sola  bona  opera  dicenda  sunt,  quae 
hunt  per  dilectionem  Dei.  Ipsa  enim  dilectio  opus  fidei  dicitur. — Faith 
would  therefore  still  be  the  source  of  good  works ;  comp.  Lib.  ii.  Dist.  41, 
A.  where  every  thing  which  does  not  proceed  from  faith  (according  to  Rom. 
xiv.  23)  is  represented  as  sin. — The  views  of  Thomas  Aquinas  were  not 
quite  so  scriptural ;  Summ.  P.  ii.  2,  Qu.  4,  Art.  7,  he  spoke  of  faith  itself  as 
a  virtue ,  though  he  assigned  to  it  the  first  and  highest  place  among  all  vir¬ 
tues.  Such  notions,  however,  led  more  and  more  to  the  revival  of  Pelagian 
sentiments,  till  the  forerunners  of  the  Reformation  returned  to  the  simple 
truths  of  the  Gospel.  This  was  done  e.  g .,  by  Wessel  (see  Ullmann,  p.  272, 
ss.)  and  Savonarola  (see  Rudelbach ,  p.  351,  ss.)  On  the  other  hand,  even 
the  AValdenses  laid  much  stress  upon  works  of  repentance.  Thomas  a  Kern¬ 
els  did  not  start  from  the  central  point  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  in 
such  a  measure  and  manner,  as  did  the  above  :  see  Ullmann  ubi  supra. 
[Comp.  Chalmers,  Essay  prefixed  to  the  Imitation.] 

8  Alanus  ab  Insulis  also  opposed  the  notion  of  the  meritoriousness  of 
works  in  decided  terms,  ii.  18  (quoted  by  Pez ,  i.  p.  492)  :  Bene  mereri  pro- 
prie  dicitur,  qui  sponte  alicui  benefacit,  quod  facere  non  tenetur.  Sed  nihil 

Deo  facimus,  quod  non  teneamur  facere . Ergo  meritum  nostrum  apud 

Deum  non  est  proprie  meritum,  sed  solutio  debiti.  Sed  non  est  merces  nisi 
meriti  vel  debiti  praecedentis.  Sed  non  meremur  proprie,  ergo  quod  dabitur 
a  Deo,  non  erit  proprie  merces,  sed  gratia. — Some  theologians  regarded  faith 
itself  as  meritorious  (inasmuch  as  they  considered  it  to  be  a  work,  a  virtue — 
obedience  to  the  Church.)  Thomas  Aq.  P.  ii.  2,  Qu.  2,  Art.  9. — On  the 
distinction  made  between  different  kinds  of  merita,  see  P.  ii.  1,  Qu.  114, 
Art.  4,  quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  145.  Men  have  only  a 
meritum  ex  congruo,  but  not  ex  condigno.  Christ  alone  possessed  the  latter. 
[The  meritum  de  condignp ,  strict  merit,  can  not  possibly  be  attained  by  a 
creature — on  this  ground  man  could  not  make  himself  worthy  of  grace. 
The  meritum  de  congruo ,  or,  imputativum ,  presupposes  that  grace  is  con¬ 
nected  with  certain  conditions,  in  which  man  may  have  a  part  to  perform,  by 
which  he  may  earn  this  grace.] 

7  The  development  of  the  doctrine  of  a  thesaurus  meritorum,  thesaurus 
supererogationis,  belongs  to  Alexander  of  Hales  (Summa,  Pars.  iv.  Quaest.  23, 
Art.  2,  memb.  5).  To  this  was  added  the  distinction  made  by  Thomas 
Aquinas  between  consilium  and  praeceptum,  see  Summ.  P.  ii.  Qu.  108,  Art. 
4,  quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  177.  [Praeceptum  importat 
necessitatem  :  consilium  autem  in  optione  ponitur  ejus  cui  datur. . . .  Supra 
prcEcepta  sunt  addita  consilia. .  .  .Consilia  vero  oportet  esse  de  illi&  per  quae 
melius  et  expeditius  potest  homo  consequi  finem  praedictum.]  On  the  histor¬ 
ical  development  of  indulgencies,  see  f  (Hus.)  Amort ,  Historia. . . .  de  Origine, 
Progressu,  Yalore  et  Fructu  Indulgentiarum,  Venet.,  1738,  fol.  Gieseler , 
Church  Hist.  (N.  Y.  ed.),  ii.  196,  518,  iii.  162,  393.  Ullmann ,  Reformat, 
vor  d.  Ref.  i.  203.  \Hirscher,  Die  Lehre  vom  Ablass,  Tub.,  1844.  [G.  E. 

Steitz,  d.  romische  Busssacrament,  Frankf.,  1853. — Clement  YI.  in  the  Con - 


70 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


stitutio  Unigenitus ,  1343,  for  the  jubilee  of  1350,  granted  large  indulgences, 
founded  on  this  treasury  of  grace,  and  stated  the  whole  doctrine  explicitly. — • 
Innocent  III.,  in  1213,  issued  indulgences  for  the  crusaders,  in  very  broad 
terms,  saying  to  all  who  took  part — plenam  suorum  peccaminum  de  quibus 
veraciter  fuerint  corde  contriti  et  ore  confessi,  veniam  indulgemus,  et  in 
rctributione  justorum  salutis  seternm  pollicemur  augmentum. — Albertus  Mag. 
Sent.  iv.  d.  20,  16,  defines:  Indulgentia  sive  relaxatio  est  remissio  poense  in- 
junctse  ex  vi  clavium  et  thesauro  supererogationis  perfectorum  procedens. .  . . 
In  hoc  enim  thesauro  habet  ecclesia  divitias  meritorum  et  passionis  Christi 
et  gloriosse  virginis  Marias  et  omnium  apostolorum  et  martyrum  et  sanctorum 
Dei  vivorum  et  mortuorum.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  III.  in  Suppl.  25,  a.  1,  gives 
the  rationale  of  the  matter :  Ratio  autem,  quare  valere  possint,  est  unitas 
corporis  mystici,  in  qua  multi  in  operibus  poenitentise  supererogaverunt  ad 
mensuram  debitorum  suorum,  et  multi  etiam  tribulationes  injustas  sus- 
tinuerunt  patienter,  per  quas  multitudo  poenarum  poterat  expiari,  si  eis  de- 
beretur ;  quorum  meritorum  tanta  est  copia  quod  omnem  poenam  debitam 
nunc  viventibus  excedunt;  et  prsecipue  propter  meritum  Christi. ...  Sic 
prsedicta  merita  communia  sunt  totius  ecclesiae.  Comp.  Schmid ,  Lehrb.  d. 
Dogmengesch.  122.] 

8  Thus  the  Franciscan  monk,  Bertliold ,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  zealously 
opposed  the  penny-preachers  who  seduced  the  souls  of  men  (see  JGling,  pp. 
149,  150,  235,  289,  384,  395;  Grimm ,  p.  210;  Wackernagel ,  deutsches 
Lesebuch  i.  Sp.  664).  On  the  struggles  of  Wycliffe,  Hus,  and  others,  see  the 
works  on  Ecclesiastical  History.  Concerning  the  treatise  of  Hus  :  De  In- 
dulgentiis,  compare  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  p.  599,  ss.  Besides,  the  actual  ex¬ 
ercises  of  penance  on  the  part  of  the  Flagellantes,  and  those  who  tormented 
themselves,  formed  a  practical  opposition  to  the  laxity  of  principle.  See 
Gieseler,  1.  c. 


SIXTH  DIVISION. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 

SACRAMENTS. 

§  187. 

THE  CHURCH. 

Even  in  the  preceding  period,  the  idea  of  the  Church  had  become 
confounded  with  its  external  manifestation,  and  thus  the  way  was 
prepared  for  all  the  abuses  of  the  Romish  hierarchy,  and  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  papacy.  The  relation  in  which  the  ecclesiastical  power 
stands  to  the  secular  (or  the  church  to.the  state),  was  often  illustrated 
by  the  comparison  of  the  two  swords,  which  some  supposed  to  be 
separated,  while  others  thought  them  united  in  the  hand  of  Peter.1 
It  belongs,  properly  speaking,  to  the  province  of  Canon  Law,  to 
develop  and  define  those  relations  ;  but,  inasmuch  as  adherence  to 
the  decisions  of  ecclesiastical  authorities  on  such  matters  was  sup¬ 
posed  to  form  a  part  of  orthodoxy,  and  as  every  species  of  dissent  ap¬ 
peared  not  only  heretical,  but  as  the  most  dangerous  of  all  heresies, 
it  is  obvious  that  they  are  not  to  be  passed  over  with  silence  in  the 
history  of  doctrines.  That  which  exerted  the  greatest  influence  upon 
the  doctrinal  tendency  of  the  present  age,  was  the  dogma  of  the 
~  papal  power  and  infallibility,  in  opposition  to  the  position  that  the 
council  is  superior  to  the  Pope.3  The  mystical  idea  of  the  church, 
and  the  notion  of  a  universal  priesthood,  which  was  intimately  con¬ 
nected  with  it,  was  propounded,  with  more  or  less  definiteness,,  by 
Hugo  of  St.  Victor ,  as  well  as  by  the  forerunners  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion,  Wy cliff ( 3,  Matthias  of  Janow ,  Hus ,  John  of  Wesel,  WesselT 
and  Savonarola .3  The  antihierarchical  element  referred  to,  and  to¬ 
gether  with  it  the  antiecclesiastical,  manifested  itself  nowhere  so* 
strongly  as  in  the  fanatical  sects  of  the  middle  ages,  whose>  princi¬ 
ples  also  led  them  sometimes  to  oppose  not  only  Christianity,  but 
also  the  existing  political  governments.4  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Waldenses  and  Bohemian  brethren  endeavored,  in  a  simple  way, 
and  without  fanaticism,  to  return  to  the  foundation  laid  by  the 
apostles :  overlooking,  however,  the  historical  development  of  the 
Church.5 


72 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


1  This  is  more  fully  shown  in  the  work  entitled :  Vridankes  Bescheiden- 
heit,*  edit,  by  Grimm ,  Gott.  1834,  p.  lvii. — Bernard  of  Clairval  already 
interpreted  the  words  of  Luke  xxii.  36-38,  in  a  figurative  sense  ;  Epist.  ad 
Eugen.  256  (written  a.  d.  1146)  ;  in  agreement  with  him,  John  of  Salisbury 
(Polic.  iv.  3)  asserted,  that  both  the  swords  are  in  the  hands  of  the  Pope, 
but  yet  the  Pope  ought  to  wield  the  secular  sword  by  the  arm  of  the  Em¬ 
peror.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Emperor  Frederic  I.  referred  the  one  of  the 
two  swords  to  the  power  of  the  Pope,  the  other  to  that  of  the  Emperor  (see 
the  letters  written  a.  d.  1157,  1160,  1167,  in  the  work  of  Grimm).  The 
Emperor  Otto  maintained  the  same  in  opposition  to  Pope  Innocent  III. 
Since  it  was  Peter  (according  to  John  xviii.  10)  who  drew  the  sword,  the 
advocates  of  the  Papal  system  inferred,  that  both  the  swords  ought  to  be  in 
one  hand,  and  that  the  Pope  had  only  to  lend  it  to  the  Emperor.  Such  was 
the  reasoning,  e.  g.,  of  the  Franciscan  monk,  Berthold.  On  the  contrary, 
others,  as  Freidank ,  Reinmar  of  Zweter ,  and  the  author  of  the  work  en¬ 
titled  :  Per  Sachsenspiegel ,  insisted  that  the  power  was  to  be  divided ;  in 
a  note  to  the  Sachsenspiegel,  it  is  assumed  that  Christ  gave  only  one  of  the 
two  swords  to  the  Apostle  Peter,  but  the  other,  the  secular  one,  to  the 
Apostle  John.  The  opposite  view  was  defended  in  the  work  called  “  der 
Sehwabenspiegel.”  Further  particulars  are  given  by  Grimm,  1.  c.  [Com-r 
pare  also  Gieseler  ii.  §  55,  note  13.] — There  were  also  not  wanting  those 
who  advocated  the  freedom  of  the  chureh  in  opposition  to  the  secular  as 
well  as  the  spiritual  domination.  Thus  John  of  Salisbury  maintained  the 
principle  :  Ecclesiastica  debent  esse  liberrima  :  see  his  95th  Epistle  and  the 
collection  of  Masson  (in  Ritter ,  Gesh.  d.  Phil.  viii.  50,  Note). 

3  Compare  e.g.  the  bull  issued  by  Pope  Boniface  VIII.  a.  d.  1302  (in 
Extravag.  Commun.  Lib.  i.  Tit.  viii.  cap.  1.),  and  the  decision  of  the  Synod 
of  Basle,  Sess.  i.  the  19.  Jul.  1431,  in  which  the  opposite  doctrine  was  set 
forth.  ( Mansi  T.  xxix.  Cod.  21  :  both  in  M'unscher ,  edit,  by  Von  Colin, 
p.  316-18.) 

3  According  to  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  (de  Sacram.  Lib.  ii.  P.  iii.  quoted  by 
Liebner,  p.  445,  ss.),  Christ  is  the  invisible  head  of  the  Church,  and  the 
multitudo  fidelium  is  his  body.  The  Church,  as  a  whole,  is  divided  into  two 
halves  (walls),  the  laity  and  the  clergy  (the  left  side  and  the  right  side).  As 
much  as  the  spirit  is  above  the  body,  so  much  is  the  ecclesiastical  power 
above  the  secular.  On  that  account,  the  former  has  the  right  not  only  to 
institute  the  latter,  but  also  to  judge  it  when  it  is  corrupt.  But  since  the 
ecclesiastical  power  itself  is  instituted  by  God,  it  can  be  judged  only  by 
God  when  it  turns  from  the  right  path  (1  Cor.  vi.)  Hugo  also  acknowl¬ 
edged  the  Pope  as  the  vicarius  Petri.  lie  conceded  to  him  the  privilege  of 
'being  served  by  all  ecclesiastics,  and  the  unlimited  power  of  binding  and 
'loosing  all  things  upon  earth. —  Wycliffe  made  a  much  more  precise  distinc¬ 
tion  between  the  idea  of  the  Church,  and  the  external  ecclesiastical  power, 

-■#  .The  passage  in  Vridank  reads  (p.  152) : 

Zwei  swert  in  einer  scheide 
verderbent  lihte  beide ; 
als  der  babest  riches  gert, 
so  verderbent  beidin  swert. 


§  187.  The  Church. 


73 


than  Hugo  (see  the  extracts  from  the  Trialogus  given  by  Schrockh ,  xxxiv. 
p.  510,  ss.,  and  his  other  writings  of  an  antihierarchical  tendency,  ibid, 
p.  547.)  Meander,  Church  History  (Torrey)  v.  173  sq. :  Hist.  Dogmas,  613. 
Bohringer,  409.  Vaughan's  Life  of  W. — Lechler  in  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  hist. 
Theol.  1853.)  Still  more  definite  was  Matthias  of  Janow  (De  Eegulis  Yet. 
Novique  Test.),  who  says,  that  seeming  Christians  can  no  more  be  regarded 
as  Christians,  than  a  painted  man  can  be  called  a  man  :  comp.  Meander,  ubi 
supra.  Hus ,  in  his  treatise  De  Ecclesia,  distinguishes  between  three  forms 
of  manifestation  of  the  Church  :  1.  Ecclesia  triumphans ,  i.  e.,  beati  in  patria 
quiescentes,  qui  adversus  Satanam  militiam  Christi  tenentes,  finaliter  trium- 
pharunt ;  2.  Ecclesia  dormiens ,  i.  e.,  numerus  prsedestinatorum  in  purgatorio 
patiens ;  3.  Ecclesia  militans ,  i.  e.,  ecclesia  prsedestinatorum,  dum  hie  viat  ad 
patriam.  From  this  true  church,  at  present  represented  in  these  three  forms, 
he  distinguishes,  again,  the  ecclesia  nuncupative  dicta  (the  ecclesia  of  the 
prcesciti) ;  Quidam  sunt  in  ecclesia  nomine  et  re,  ut  prcedestinati,  obedientes 
Christo  catholici ;  quidam  nec  re  nec  nomine,  ut  prsesciti  pagani :  quidam 
nomine  tantum,  ut  prsesciti  hypocritse;  et  quidam  re,  licet  videantur  nomine 
esse  foris,  ut  prsedestinati  Christian],  quos  Antichristi  satrapse  videntur  in 
facie  ecclesise  condemnare  (among  whom  Hus  probably  reckoned  himself). 
Comp,  further  in  Munchmeier ,  ubi  supra,  p.  16.  Hase,  Kirchengesckichte, 
p.  387,  says  of  him  : — “ Hus  ascended  from  the  idea  of  the  Roman  Church 
to  the  idea  of  the  true  Church,  which  was  in  his  opinion  the  community  of 
all  who  have  from  eternity  been  predestinated  to  blessedness,  and  whose  head 
can  be  none  but  Christ  himself,  and  not  the  Pope.  As  Hus ,  however,  re¬ 
tained  all  the  assertions  concerning  the  Church  made  by  the  Roman  Cath¬ 
olics,  and  applied  them  to  the  said  community  of  the  elect,  who  alone  can 
administer  the  sacraments  in  an  efficient  way,  his  Church  must  necessarily 
have  assumed  the  character  of  an  association  of  separatists .”  On  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  the  views  of  Hus  to  those  of  Gerson,  see  Munchmeier ,  u.  s.  18  Note. 
Hus’s  friend,  Nicolas  de  Clemangis ,  also,  in  agreement  with  Hus,  regarded 
the  vital  faith  of  the  individual  as  the  real  living  principle,  by  which  the 
dead  church  was  to  be  revived ;  hence  his  declaration :  In  sola  potest  mu- 
liercula  per  gratiam  manere  ecclesia,  sicut  in  sola  Yirgine  tempore  passionis 
mansisse  creditur  (Disputatio  de  Concil.  General).  Comp.  M'unz,  Nic.  Cle- 
manges,  sa  vie  et  ses  ecrits,  Strasb.  1846.  [Comp,  on  Clemangis,  and  Hus 
and  Wycliffe,  Presb.  Quarterly,  1856-8.]  John  von  Wesel  (Disp.  adv.  In¬ 
dulgent.),  starting  from  the  different  definitions  of  the  word  ecclesia,  shows, 
that  we  can  equally  «vell  say,  ecclesia  universalis  non  errat,  and,  ecclesia  uni¬ 
versalis  errat.  Only  the  church  founded  on  the  rock  is  to  him,  sancta  et  im- 
maculata ;  and  he  distinguishes  from  this,  the  church — peccatrix  et  adultera. 
John  Wessel  held  that  the  Church  consists  in  the  community  of  saints,  to 
which  all  truly  pious  Christians  belong — viz.  those  who  are  united  to  Christ 
by  one  faith,  one  hope,  and  one  love  (he  did  not  exclude  the  Greek  Christians). 
The  external  unity  of  the  Church  under  the  Pope  is  merely  accidental ;  nor 
is  the  unity  spoken  of  established  by  the  decrees  of  councils.  (Hyperbo¬ 
reans,  Indians,  and  Scythians,  who  know  nothing  of  the  councils  of  Constance 
or  Basle!)  But  he  considered  love  to  be  still  more  excellent  than  the  unity 
of  faith.  In  close  adherence  to  the  principle  of  Augustine  (Evangelio  non 


74 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


crederem,  etc.)  which  he  regarded  as  a  subjective  concession,  he  believed 
with  the  Church,  and  according  to  the  Church,  but  not  in  the  Church. 
Respecting  the  priesthood  he  retained  the  distinction  between  laity  and 
clergy,  but  at  the  same  time  admitted  the  doctrine  of  a  universal  priesthood, 
together  with  the  particular  priesthood  of  the  clergy.  Nor  does  the  Church 
exist  for  the  sake  of  the  clergy,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  clergy  exist  for  the 
sake  of  the  Church.  Comp.  Ullmann ,  p.  296,  ss.  (after  the  various  essays, 
De  dignitate  et  potestate  ecclesiastica,  De  sacramento  poenitentise,  De  com- 
munione  Sanctorum  et  thesauro  ecclesise,  collected  in  the  Farrago  Rerum 
Theologicarum),  and  Munclimcier,  p.  19. — According  to  Savonarola ,  the 
Church  is  composed  of  all  those  who  are  united  in  the  bonds  of  love  and  of 
Christian  truth,  by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  the  Church  is  not 
there ,  where  this  grace  does  not  exist  ;  see  the  passages  collected  from  his 
sermons  in  Ludelhach ,  p.  354,  ss.,  and  Meier ,  p.  282,  ss.  Respecting  the 
mystical  interpretation  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  as  having  regard  to  the 
Church,  see  ibid. 

*  Compare  Mosheim ,  p.  257  :  Dicunt,  se  credere,  ecclesiam  catholicam 
sive  christianitatem  fatuam  esse  vel  fatuitatem.  Item,  quod  homo  perfectus 
sit  liber  in  totum,  quod  tenetur  ad  servandum  prsecepta  data  ecclesise  a  Deo, 
sicut  est  prseceptum  de  honoratione  parentum  in  necessitate.  Item,  quod 
ratione  hujus  libertatis  homo  non  tenetur  ad  servandum  prsecepta  Prselato- 
rum  et  statutorum  ecclesise,  et  hominem  fortem,  etsi  non  religiosum,  non 
obligari  ad  labores  manuales  pro  necessitatibus  suis,  sed  eum  libere  posse 
recipere  eleemosynam  pauperum.  Item  dicunt,  se  credere  omnia  esse  com- 
munia,  unde  dicunt,  furtum  eis  licitum  esse. 

5  Comp.  Gieseler ,  Church  History  ii.  §  86.  Herzog ,  Waldenser,  194  sq. 


§  188. 

THE  WORSHIP  OF  SAINTS. 

[Rev.  J.  B.  Morris,  Jesus  the  Son  of  Mary ;  on  the  Reverence  shown  by  Catholics  to  his 
Blessed  Mother.  Lond.  2  vols.  1851  :  comp.  Brownson’s  Review,  July,  1852  and 
1853.  Kitto  s  Journal,  April,  1852.  J.  H.  Horne,,  Mariolatry  of  Rome,  edited  by 
Jarvis,  1850.  Dublin  Review,  on  Worship  of  Saints,  April,  1853.  Pusey ,  on  Rule 
of  Faith,  pp.  55-60.  Newman ,  on  Development,  173-80.  A  review  of  Liguori’s 
Glories  of  Mary,  discussing  the  patristic  testimony,  in  Christian  Remembrancer, 
Lond.  Oct.  1855.] 

The  hierarchical  system  of  the  Papacy,  which  was  reared  like  a 
lofty  pyramid  upon  earth,  was  supposed  to  correspond  to  a  supposed 
hierarchy  in  heaven,  at  the  head  of  which  was  Mary,  the  mother  of 
Grod.1  The  objection  of  the  polytheistic  tendency  of  this  doctrine, 
which  would  naturally  suggest  itself  to  reflecting  minds,  was  met 
by  the  scholastics  of  the  Greek  Church  by  making  a  distinction  be¬ 
tween  Xarpeia  and  TcpooKvvrjoip  ;  by  those  of  the  Latin  Church,  by 
distinguishing  between  Latvia,  Dulia ,  and  Hyperdulia.'1  But  such 


§  188.  The  Worship  of  Saints. 


75 


distinctions  were  by  no  means  safeguards  against  practical  abuses  ; 
in  consequence  of  these,  the  forerunners  of  the  Reformation  were 
induced  to  oppose,  with  all  energy,  the  worship  of  saints.3 

1  The  adoration  of  the  Yirgin  (Mariolatry)  was  countenanced  by  John 
Damascenus  among  the  Greeks,  and  by  Peter  Damiani ,  Bernard  of  Clair - 
val,  JBonaventura ,*  and  other  theologians  of  the  Western  Church;  see 
Gieseler,  1.  c.  ii.  §  78,  (where  passages  from  the  songs  of  the  Minnesingers 
are  quoted)  ;  Munscher ,  edit,  by  Yon  Colin,  p.  180-82  ;  and  De  Gratiis  et 
Yirtutibus  beata3  Marias  Yirg.,  in  Pez ,  Tlies.  Anecdd.  T.  i.  p.  509  ss.  To 
these  we  may  add  a  passage  from  Tauler ,  Predigt.  auf  unser  lieben  Frauen 
Yerktindigung  (Predigten,  vol, iii.  p.  57).  Tauler  calls  Mary,  “the  daughter 
of  the  Father,  the  mother  of  the  Son,  the  bride  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
queen  o|  heaven,  the  lady  of  the  world  and  of  all  creatures,  the  mother 
and  intercessor  of  all  those  who  implore  her  help,  a  temple  of  God,  in 
which  God  has  reposed,  like  a  bridegroom  in  his  chamber,  with  great  plea¬ 
sure  and  delight ;  as  in  a  garden  full  of  every  kind  of  odoriferous  herbs,  he 
found  in  the  virgin  all  kinds  of  virtues  and  gifts.  By  means  of  these  vir¬ 
tues  she  has  made  the  heaven  of  the  Holy  Trinity  pour  out  honey  upon 
wretched  sinners  such  as  we,  and  has  brought  to  us  the  Sun  of  Righteous¬ 
ness,  and  abolished  the  curse  of  Eve,  and  crushed  the  head  of  the  devilish 
serpent.  This  second  Eve  has  restored,  by  her  child,  all  that  the  first  Eve 
lost  and  marred,  and  has  provided  much  more  grace  and  riches.  She  is 
the  star  that  was  to  come  out  of  Jacob  (of  which  the  Scripture  foretold — 
Numb.  xxiv.  1 7),  whose  lustre  imparts  light  to  the  whole  world:  accord¬ 
ingly,  in  every  distress  (says  Bernard)  fix  thy  eyes  upon  that  star,  call  upon 
Mary,  and  thou  canst  not  despair  ;  follow  Mary,  and  thou  canst  not  miss  thy 
way.  She  will  keep  thee  by  the  power  of  her  child,  lest  thou  fall  in  the 
way ;  she  will  protect  thee,  lest  thou  despair ;  she  will  conduct  thee  to  her 
child  ;  she  is  able  to  perform  it,  for  God  Almighty  is  her  child ;  she  is 
willing  to  do  it,  for  she  is  merciful.  Who  could  doubt  for  a  moment  that 
the  child  would  not  honor  his  mother,  or  that  she  does  not  overflow  with 
dove,  in  whom  perfect  love  (i.  e .,  God  himself)  has  reposed  ?”f — Besides  Mary, 
it  was  especially  the  apostles  of  Christ,  the  martyrs,  those  who  had  taken  an 
active  part  in  the  spread  of  Christianity,  the  founders  of  national  churches, 
the  greatest  lights  in  the  Church,  and  ascetics,  and  lastly,  monks  and  nuns 
in  particular,  that  were  canonized.  Imagination  itself  created  some  new 
(mythical)  saints,  e.  g .,  St.  Longinus;  and  in  fine,  some  of  the  men  and 
women  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  came  in  for  their  share  in  the  gen¬ 
eral  adoration.  The  right  of  canonizing  formerly  possessed  by  the  bishops 
was  more  and  more  claimed  by  the  popes  ;  for  particulars,  see  the  works  on 
Ecclesiastical  History. 

*  Comp,  the  Psalterium  beatse  M arise  Yirginis,  of  the  13th  century.  [This  is  not  by 
Bonaventura,  comp.  Gieseler.  On  this  Psalter,  see  Southern  Presb.  Review,  Jan.  1855.] 

f  The  mother  of  Jesus  appears  as  an  intercessor  before  her  Son,  who  is  for  the  most 
part  represented  as  a  severe  judge.  Thus  in  the  picture  of  Rubens  in  Lyons,  Christ  is 
depicted  with  the  thunder-bolt,  while  Mary,  with  St.  Dominic  and  St.  Francis,  is  making 
supplications  at  his  feet :  see  Quandt ,  Reise  ins  mittagliche  Frankreicb,  Leipz.  1846,  p.  99. 
[See  Mrs.  Jameson's  Legends  of  the  Madonna,  1852.] 


76 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


3  In  tbe  Greek  Church  it  was,  in  the  first  instance,  in  reference  to  the 
adoration  of  images,  that  this  distinction  was  made  by  the  second  synod  of 
Nice  (in  Mansi  Concil.  T.  xiii.  Col.  377),  as  well  as  by  Theodore  Studitay 
Ep.  167,  App.  521.  The  Xarpeta  is  due  to  none  but  the  triune  God, 
the  Tiprpnu)]  irpoGKvvrjGiq  we  owe  also  to  images. — In  the  Latin  Church, 
Peter  Lombard ,  Sent.  Lib.  iii.  Diet.  9,  A.,  ascribed  the  Latria  to  God  alone. 
He  further  asserted,  that  there  are  two  species  of  Dulia ,  the  one  of  which 
belongs  to  every  creature,  while  the  other  is  due  only  to  the  human  nature 
of  Christ.  Thomas  Aquinas  added  (Lib.  ii.  P.  i.  Qu.  103,  Art.  4)  the 
Hyperdulia ,  which  he  ascribed  to  none  but  Mary.  Compare  the  passages 
quoted  by  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  pp.  182,  183. 

3  This  was  done  e.  g.  by  Hus,  in  his  treatise  De  Mysterio  Antichristi,  c.  23. 
See  Schrochk,  xxxiv.  pp.  614,  615. 

The  adoration  of  saints  was  connected  with  the  adoration  of  images ,  and 
the  worship  of  images.  The  consideration  of  the  external  history  of  the 
controversy  respecting  images  belongs  to  the  province  of  ecclesiastical  his¬ 
tory.  The  worship  of  images  was  defended  upon  doctrinal  grounds  by 
John  Damascenus ,  Orationes  II.  pro  Imaginibus.  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  305,  ss. — 
The  Synod  of  Constantinople  (a.  d.  754)  decided  against  the  superstitious 
adoration  of  images,  the  second  Synod  of  Nice  (a.  d.  787)  pronounced  in 
favor  of  it.  A  distinction  was  made  between  the  X arpeia,  which  is  due  to  God 
alone,  and  the  Trpooicvvrjoiq  npgruAj  (aoTraopof),  which  could  be  paid  as  well 
to  the  images  or  pictures  of  saints,  as  to  the  sign  of  the  cross  and  the  Holy 
Gospels. — An  intermediate  view  was  at  first  entertained  in  the  Western 
Church  (imagines  non  ad  adorandum,  sed  ad  memoriam  rerum  gestarum  et 
parietum  venustatem  habere  permittimus),  e.  g.  by  the  Emperor  Charle¬ 
magne  in  the  treatise  De  impio  Imaginum  Cultu,  Lib.  iv.  (written  about  the 
year  790),  and  the  Synod  of  Frankfort  (a.  d.  794)  ;  the  doctrine  of  the 
Synod  of  Nice  was  defended  by  Pope  Hadrian  (he  composed  a  refutation  of 
the  books  of  Charlemagne;  in  Mansi  T.  xiii.  Col.  759, ss.).  Theodulph  of 
Orleans. — Thomas  Aquinas  afterwards  asserted  (Summ.  P.  iii.  Qu.  25,  Art. 
3),  in  reference  to  the  cross  of  Christ :  Cum  ergo  Christus  adoretur  adora- 
tione  latriee,  consequens  est,  quod  ejus  imago  sit  adoratione  latrise  adoranda 
(here  then  we  have  a  specimen  of  real  idolatry  ?).  Comp.  Art,  4,  and  John 
Damascenus  De  Fide  Orthod.  Lib.  iv.  c.  11. 


§  189. 

THE  SACRAMENTS. 

cc  The  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments  is  the  principal  point  in  which 
the  scholastics  were  productive  in  the  formal  aspect ,  as  well  as  the 
material.”1  Not  only  was  the  attempt  made  by  several  theologians, 
such  as  Hugo  of  St.  Victor /  Peter  Lombard*  and  others,  to  estab¬ 
lish  a  more  precise  definition  of  the  term  “  sacrament/’  upon  the 
basis  laid  down  by  Augustine ;  but,  with  regard  to  the  number  of 
sacraments,  the  sacred  number  seven  was  determined  upon  especially 


§  189.  The  Sacraments. 


77 


through  the  influence  of  Peter  Lombard.4  In  reference  to  the  latter 
point,  however,  nothing  had  been  decided  previous  to  the  time  of 
Bonaventura  and  Thomas  Aquinas .5  But  after  the  number  had 
once  been  determined,  it  was  a  comparatively  easy  task  for  theolo¬ 
gians,  so  acute  as  the  scholastics,  to  find  out  some  profound  reasons 
for  it.8  As,  moreover,  the  Greek  church,  from  the  ninth  century, 
manifested  a  disposition  to  increase  the  number  of  the  sacraments,7 
when  attempts  were  made  at  that  time  to  unite  the  two  churches, 
the  Western  computation  was  confirmed  by  the  Council  of  Florence.8 
Only  Wy cliff e ,  the  Waldenses,  and  the  more  rigid  among  the  Hus- 
ites,  either  returned  to  the  primitive  number  two,  or  dissented  more 
or  less  from  the  seven  of  the  Catholic  church,  and  from  its  idea  of 
the  sacrament.9 

1  TJllmann ,  Wessel,  pp.  321,  322. 

3  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  was  not  satisfied  with  the  definition  of  Augustine  : 
sacramentum  est,  sacrse  rei  signum  (comp.  vol.  i.  §  136),  and  called  it  a 
mere  nominal  definition.  Letters  and  pictures,  added  he,  might  equally  he 
signs  of  sacred  things.  His  own  definition  is  given  Lib.  i.  P.  ix.  c.  2  :  Sacra¬ 
mentum  est  corporale  vel  materiale  elementum  foris  sensibiliter  propositum, 
ex  similitudine  repraesentans,  ex  institutione  significans,  et  ex  sanctificatione 
continens,  aliquam  invisibilem  et  spiritalem  gratiam.  The  definition  given 
in  Summ.  Tr.  ii.  c.  1,  is  shorter :  sacramentum  est  visibilis  forma  invisibilis 
gratiae  in  eo  collatae.  Comp.  De  Sacr.  Lib.  ii.  P.  vi.  c.  3 ;  Liebner ,  p.  426': 
[Hugo  also  uses  sacramentum  in  a  wider  sense — e.  y.,  c.  9,  De  Sacramento 
Fidei  et  Yirtute :  Sacramentum  enim  fidei  vel  ipsa  tides  intelligitur,  quae 
sacramentum  est,  vel  sacramenta  fidei  intelliguntur,  quae  cum  fide  percipienda 
sunt  et  ad  sanctificationem  fidelium  praeparata  sunt.] 

3  Sent.  L.  iv.  Dist.  13:  Sacramentum  enim  proprie  dicitur,  quod  ita  sig¬ 
num  est  gratiae  dei  et  invisibilis  gratiae  forma,  ut  ipsius  imaginem  gerat  et 
Causa  existat.  The  same  can  not  be  said  with  regard  to  all  signs .  . .  (omne 
sacramentum  est  signum,  sed  non  e  converso).  Comp.  Bonaventura ,  Bre- 
viloqu.  vi.  c.  1,  ss. 

4  As  late  as  the  present  period  the  opinions  of  the  theologians  on  this 
point  were  for  a  considerable  time  divided.  Rabanus  Maurus  and  Pascha- 
siits  Radbert  acknowledged  only  four  sacraments,  or,  more  properly  speak¬ 
ing,  only  the  two  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper ;  but  in 
connection  with  baptism  they  mentioned  the  Chrisma  (confirmation),  and 
divided  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  according  to  its  two  elements, 
the  body  and  the  blood  of  Christ.  Rabanus  de  Inst.  Cler.  i.  24  :  Sunt 
autem  sacramenta  Baptismus  et  Chrisma,  Corpus  et  Sanguis,  quae  ob  id 
sacramenta  dicuntur,  quia  sub  tegumento  corporalium  rerum  virtus  divina 
secretius  salutem  eorundem  sacramentorum  operatur,  unde  et  a  secretis  vir- 
tutibus  vel  sacris  sacramenta  dicuntur.  Comp.  Paschasius  de  Corp.  et  Sang. 
Domini  c.  3. — Berengar  of  Tours  expressed  himself  in  similar  terms  (de  S. 
Coena.  Berolini,  1834,  p.  153):  Duo  sunt  enim  praecipue  ecclesiae  sacramenta 
sibi  assentanea,  sibi  comparabilia,  regen erationis  fidelium  et  refectionis  (bap¬ 
tism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper). — Gottfried ,  abbot  of  Vendome,  about  1120, 


78 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


calls  tlie  ring  and  staff  with,  which  the  bishops  were  instituted,  sacramenta 
ecclesiag. — Bernard  of  Clairval  spoke  of  the  washing  of  the  feet  as  a  sacra¬ 
ment  (Sermo  in  Ccenam  Domini,  §  4,  quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von 
Colin,  p.  188.) — Hugo  of  St.  Victor  (Lib.  i.  P.  viii.  c.  7),  assumed  three 
classes  of  sacraments  :  1.  Those  sacraments  upon  which  salvation  is  su¬ 
premely  founded,  and  by  the  participation  of  which  the  highest  blessings  are 
imparted  (baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper,  together  with  confirmation,  which 
is  placed,  P.  vii.,  between  the  two  others.)  2.  Those  sacraments  which  pro¬ 
mote  sanctification,  though  they  are  not  necessary  to  salvation,  inasmuch  as, 
by  their  use,  the  right  sentiments  of  Christians  are  kept  in  practice,  and  a 
higher  degree  of  grace  may  be  obtained :  such  are  the  use  of  holy  water, 
the  sprinkling  with  ashes,  etc.  3.  Those  sacraments  which  seem  to  be  in¬ 
stituted  only  in  order  to  serve  as  a  kind  of  preparation  for,  and  sanctifica¬ 
tion  of,  the  other  sacraments,  such  as  holy  orders,  the  consecration  of  the 
robes  of  the  clergy,  and  others. — Besides  the  said  three  sacraments  of  the 
first  class,  he  made  particular  mention  of  the  sacraments  of  matrimony  (Lib. 
ii.  P.  ix.),  of  penance  (P.  xiv.),  and  of  extreme  unction  (P.  xv.)  ;  “  but  he 
did  not  slate,  in  reference  to  any  of  these  sacraments ,  as  he  did  with  regard 
to  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper ,  that  it  was  necessary  to  number  it  among 
the  sacraments  of  the  first  class.  It  is  therefore  uncertain  whether  he  has 
not  put  some  of  them  among  those  of  the  second  class."  Liebner ,  p.  429. 
Munscher,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  pp.  188,  189. — [Hugo  sums  up  thus:  Prima 
ergo  ad  salutem,  secunda  ad  exercitationem,  tertia  ad  prseparationem  con- 
stituta  sunt.  Cap.  7.]  Peter  Damiani  mentioned  as  many  as  twelve  sacra¬ 
ments  (Opp.  T.  ii.  p.  167-169.) — Whether  Otto  Bishop  of  Bamberg  (who 
lived  between  the  years  1139  and  1189,  and  who,  according  to  the  Vita 
Othonis,  in  Canisius  Lectt.  Antiqu.,  ed.  Basnage.  T.  iii.  P.  ii.  p.  62)  intro¬ 
duced  the  seven  sacraments  among  the  Pomeranians  whom  he  had  converted 
to  Christianity,  is  a  point  which  remains  to  be  investigated  (see  Engelhardt , 
Dogmengeschichte  ii.  p.  196.  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  pp.  189,  190.) 
[Gieselerx  Church  History,  doubts  the  tradition  about  Otto  of  Bamberg;  the 
Discourse  in  which  it  is  found,  he  considers  not  to  be  genuine.] — The  views 
of  Peter  Lombard  on  the  subject  in  question  were  more  decided  :  see  Sent. 
Lib.  iv.  Dist.  2,  A:  Jam  ad  sacramenta  novae  legis  accedamus,  quae  sunt 
Baptismus,  Confirmatio,  Panis  benedictio,  i.  e.,  Eucharistia,  Poenitentia, 
Unctio  extrema,  Ordo,  Conjugium.  Quorum  alia  remedium  contra  pecca- 
tum  praebent,  et  gratiam  adjutricem  conferunt,  ut  Baptismus ;  alia  in  reme¬ 
dium  tantum  sunt,  ut  Conjugium;  alia  gratia  et  virtute  nos  fulciunt,  ut 
Eucharistia  et  Ordo. 

6  Thus  Alanus  ab  Insulis ,  Lib.  iv.  (quoted  by  Pez,  p.  497)  enumerated 
the  following  sacraments :  Baptismus,  Eucharistia,  Matrimonium,  Poenitentia, 
Dedicatio  basilicarum,  Chrismatis  et  Olei  inunctio,  and  assigned  them  their 
place  as  means  of  grace  between  the  prcedicatio  and  the  ecclesia.  He  spoke 
only  of  a  plurality  of  sacraments,  but  did  not  state  the  exact  number  seven. 
Comp.  iii.  6.  Alexander  Hales,  though  he  adopted  the  number  seven,  ad¬ 
mitted  that  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  alone  were  instituted  by  our 
Lord  himself,  and  that  the  other  sacraments  had  been  appointed  by  his 


§  189.  The  Sacraments. 


79 


apostles,  and  tlie  ministers  of  the  church.  (Summa  P.  iv.  Qu.  8,  Membr.  2, 
Art.  1,  quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  pp.  196,  19V.) 

8  According  to  Thomas  Aquinas,  P.  iii.  Qu.  65.  Art.  l./the  first  five  sacra¬ 
ments  serve — ad  spiritualem  uniuscuj  usque  hominis  in  se  ipso  perfectionem, 
but  the  last  two,  ad  totius  ecclesise  regimen  multiplicationemque.  He  then 
continues :  Per  Baptismum  spiritualiter  renascimur,  per  Confirmationem 
augemur  in  gratia  et  roboramur  in  fide ;  renati  autem  et  roborati  nutrimur 
divina  Eucharistise  alimonia.  Quod  si  per  peccatum  segritudinem  incurrimus 
animae,  per  Poenitentiam  spiritualiter  sanamur ;  spiritualiter  etiam  et  corpora- 
liter,  prout  animae  expedit,  per  extremam  Unctionem.  Per  Ordinem  vero 
ecclesia  gubernatur  et  multiplicatur  spiritualiter,  per  Matrimonium  corpora- 
liter  augetur. — Thomas,  however,  agreed  with  other  theologians,  Summ. 
P.  iii.  Qu.  62.  Art.  5.  in  regarding  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  as  potis- 
sima  sacramenta. — Bonaventura  brought  (Brevil.  vi.  Cent.  iii.  sect.  4V.  c.  3.) 
the  seven  sacraments  into  connection  with  the  seven  diseases  of  man. 
Original  sin  is  counteracted  by  baptism,  mortal  sin  by  penance,  venial  sin  by 
extreme  unction  ;  ignorance  is  cured  by  ordination,  malice  by  the  Lord’s  Sup¬ 
per,  infirmity  by  confirmation,  evil  concupiscence  by  matrimony).*  He  also 
made  a  corresponding  connection  between  the  sacraments  and  the  seven  car¬ 
dinal  virtues  :  baptism  leads  to  faith,  confirmation  to  hope,  the  Lord’s  Supper 
to  love,  penance  to  righteousness,  extreme  unction  to  perseverance,  ordination 
to  wisdom,  matrimony  to  moderation  (for  further  particulars  see,  ibidem.) — 
Comp,  also  Berthold's  Sermons  edited  by  Kling,  p.  439,  ss.  The  “  seven 
sacred  things”  are,  in  his  opinion,  a  remedy  prepared  by  Jesus,  divided  into 
seven  parts,  etc.f  See  also  Raimund  of  Sabunde,  Tit.  282,  in  Matzke,  p.  91. 
[Et  ideo  Christus  ordinavit  ad  significandum  et  reprsesentandum  omnia  ista 
quae  sunt  invisibilia  et  debent  fieri  occulte  in  anima,  ut  scilicet  exterius  in 
corpore  fieret  ablutio  et  lavacrum  per  aquam  elementalem  cum  verbis  ex- 
presse  significantibus  ablutionem  et  lavacrum.  Et  ideo  ista  ablutio,  quae  fit 
in  aqua  eo  modo  quo  Christus  ordinavit,  vocatur  sacramentum  seu  signum 
regenerationis  et  renovationis,  quia  hoc  est  regenerare  hominem  et  innovare, 
quia  anima  recipit  novum  esse  spirituale.  Et  ideo  in  isto  sacramento  recipit 
homo  nomen  novum,  quia  vocatur  Christianus,  etc.] 

7  John  Damascenus  mentioned  (De  Fide  Orthod.  iv.  13)  the  two  myste¬ 
ries  of  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper,  the  former  in  reference  to  the  birth 
of  man,  the  latter  in  reference  to  the  support  of  his  new  life ;  these  two 
mysteries  were  again  subdivided  by  him-— viz,  baptism  into  water  and  Spirit 
(Chrisma),  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  into  bread  and  wine. — Theodore  Studita 
taught  (lib.  ii.  Ep.  165,  Opp.  p.  517)  six  sacraments  (after  the  example  of 
Pseudo-Dionysius,  see  vol.  i.  §  136,  Note  3) — viz.  1.  Baptism  ;  2.  The  Lord’s 
Supper  {ovva^tg,  kolvmvlo)  ;  3.  The  consecration  of  the  holy  oil  (re/Ler?) 
fwpov) ;  4.  The  ordination  of  priests  ( ieparucal  reXeiddoeig) ;  5.  The  monas¬ 
tic  state  ( povaxLKT]  reXeiodoig) ;  and  6.  The  rites  performed  for  the  dead 

*  “  Thus  the  poor  laity  have  no  sacrament  for  ignorance,  nor  have  the  poor  clergy  a  sa¬ 
crament  to  counteract  lusts.”  Schleiermacher ,  Kirchengesch.  p.  514. 

t  ‘  The  Sacraments  were  also  referred  by  some  to  the  seven  kinds  of  animal  sacrifices  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  the  sprinkling  of  their  blood.”  Gieseler ,  Dogmengesch.  631. 


80 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


(jrepl  tgjv  iepcog  KeKOLgrjgevcov) .  See  Schrockh ,  Kircliengeschichte,  xxii. 
pp.  127,  128. 

8  Mansi  Cone.  T.  xxxi.  Col.  1054  ss.  The  decisions  of  this  Synod  had 
also  binding  force  for  the  united  Armenians. 

0  Wy cliff e  made  mention  of  the  ecclesiastical  number,  Lib.  iv.  c.  1.,  but 
in  the  subsequent  chapters  critically  examined  each  sacrament  separately. 
Comp.  §  190,  note  10.  Christ  was  to  him  “the  Sacrament  of  Sacraments:” 
Bohringer ,  329. — The  confession  of  faith  adopted  by  the  Waldenses  is  given 
by  Leger ,  Histoire  Generale  des  eglises  evangeliques  de  Piemont,  Leiden, 
1669,  p.  95,  quoted  by  Schrockh,  Kirchengesch.  xxix.  p.  548.  That  of  the 
Husites,  a.  d.  1443,  will  be  found  in  Lenfant,  Histoire  de  la  Guerre  des 
Husites,  vol.  ii.  p.  132,  ss.  Schrockh ,  Kirchengesch.  xxxiv.  p.  718,  ss.  Hus 
himself  adopted  the  doctrine  of  seven  sacraments,  though  with  certain  modi¬ 
fications  :  see  Munscher ,  edit,  by  Yon  Colin,  p.  201. 


§  190. 

THE  SAME  SUBJECT  CONTINUED. 

Many  discussions  took  place  among  the  scholastics  as  to  the 
antiquity  of  the  sacraments/  their  necessity,  design,  and  significance, 
as  well  as  respecting  their  specific  virtue  and  effects.2  In  the  spirit 
of  the  better  class  of  the  mystics,  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  traced  the 
design  of  the  sacraments  to  the  inward  religious  wants  of  man.3 
But  Thomas  Aquinas  especially  endeavored,  with  a  great  show 
of  learning,  both  to  define  the  idea  of  sacrament  still  more  pre¬ 
cisely,  and  to  enlighten  himself,  as  well  as  others,  concerning  its 
effects.4  In  consequence  of  the  death  of  Jesus,  the  sacraments 
instituted  in  the  New  Testament  have  obtained  what  is  called  the 
virtus  instrumentalist  or  effect  iv  a,  which  those  of  the  Old  Testament 
did  not  possess.5  Therefore,  by  partaking  of  the  sacraments,  man 
acquires  a  certain  character ,  which  in  the  case  of  some  sacraments, 
such  as  baptism,  confirmation  and  the  ordination  of  priests,  is 
character  indelehilis ,  and,  consequently,  renders  impossible  the  re¬ 
petition  of  such  sacraments.6  The  effects  produced  by  the  sacra¬ 
ments  arise,  not  only  ex  opere  operantis ,  but  also  ex  opere  operato ,T 
Accordingly,  they  neither  depend  upon  the  external  or  internal 
worth  of  him  who  administers  the  sacrament,  nor  upon  his  faith 
and  moral  character,  but  upon  his  intention  to  administer  the  sacra¬ 
ment  as  such.  This  intention  must  at  least  be  habitual ;  but  it  is 
not  absolutely  necessary  that  it  should  be  actual* — In  opposition 
to  the  doctrine  of  Thomas,  which  received  the  sanction  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  Duns  Scotus  denied  that  the  effective  power  of 
grace  was  contained  in  the  sacraments  themselves.®  The  forerun¬ 
ners  of  the  Reformation,  e.  g.  Wessel  and  Wy  cliff e,  combated  still 


\ 


§  190.  The  Sackaments.  81 

more  decidedly  the  doctrine,  that  the  effects  of  the  sacrament  are 
produced  ex  opere  operato,  while  they  manifested  the  highest  rev¬ 
erence  for  the  sacraments  themselves  as  divine  institutions.10  Thus 
they  preserved  the  medium  between  that  superstitious,  and  merely 
external  view,  by  which  the  sacrament  was  changed,  as  it  were,  into 
a  charm,  and  the  fanatical  and  subjective  theory  adopted  by  the 
pantheistic  sects,  who  proudly  idealized  and  rejected  all  visible 
pledges  and  seals  of  supernatural  blessings.11 

1  On  the  question,  in  what  sense  the  Old  Testament  may  be  said  to  have 

had  its  sacraments?  see  Peter  Lombard,  Sent.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  1,  E . 

Yeteris  Testamenti  sacramenta  promittebant  tantum  et  significabant,  hsec 
autem  (novi  testamenti)  dant  salutem  (comp,  the  opinions  of  Augustine, 
ibidem.)  Inasmuch  as  the  sacraments  were  made  necessary  in  consequence 
of  sin,  but  God  had  instituted  matrimony  in  Paradise,  this  sacrament  was 
considered  to  be  the  earliest,  belonging  even  to  the  state  of  innocence.  See 
Cramer ,  vii.  p.  103.  Comp.  Thomas  Aquinas  (in  notes  4  and  5). 

2  “  The  common  tradition  of  the  Church  taught  only  the  notion  of  a 
magical  efficacy  of  the  sacraments ,  and  thus  assigned  too  great  an  influence 
to  the  mere  external  and  unspiritual  form.  On  the  contrary ,  the  scholastics 
clearly  perceived,  that  justification  and  sanctification  are  something  essen¬ 
tially  free ,  internal,  and  spiritual,  and  depend  upon  faith.  These  two  no¬ 
tions  being  contradictory  to  each  other,  it  became  necessary  to  reconcile  them, 
which  was  for  the  most  part  done  by  ingenious  reasonings Liebner,  Hugo 
von  St.  Victor,  p.  430. 

3  According  to  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  the  design  of  the  sacraments  is  three¬ 
fold  :  Propter  humiliationem  (we  must  submit  to  the  visible,  in  order  to 
attain  by  it,  to  the  invisible) ;  2.  Propter  eruditionem  (the  visible  leads  to 
the  invisible.  Though  a  sick  person  may  not  see  the  medicine  he  is  to  take, 
he  sees  the  bottle,  which  gives  him  an  intimation  of  the  healing  power  it 
contains,  and  inspires  him  with  confidence  and  hope) ;  3.  Propter  exercita- 
tionem  (the  inner  and  spiritual  life  of  man  is  strengthened  thereby).  The 
three  persons  of  the  Trinity  take  an  active  part  in  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments.  The  Father  (as  the  Creator)  creates  the  elements  ;  the  Son  (as 
the  Redeemer,  God-man)  institutes  them ;  and  the  Holy  Ghost  sanctifies 
them  (through  grace).  Man,  as  the  instrument  of  God,  distribute^  them. 
God  is  the  physician,  man  is  the  diseased  person,  the  priest  is  the  servant  or 
the  messenger  of  God,  the  grace  of  God  (not  the  sacrament)  is  the  medicine, 
and  the  sacrament  is  the  vessel  in  which  it  is  contained. — God  could  have 
saved  man  without  sacraments,  if  he  had  chosen  ;  but  since  he  has  been 
pleased  to  institute  them,  it  is  the  duty  of  man  to  submit  to  his  arrangement; 
nevertheless,  God  can  still  save  without  sacraments.  If  either  time  or  place 
prevent  one  from  receiving  the  sacraments,  the  res  (virtus)  sacramenti 
is  sufficient ;  for  the  thing  itself  is  of  more  importance  than  the  sign,  faith 
is  more  than  water,  etc. ;  De  Sacram.  Lib.  i.  P.  ix.,  c.  3-5.  Liebner, 
p.  430,  ss. 

4  Thomas  Aquinas  Summ.  P.  iii.,  Qu.  60-65.  (Extracts  from  it  are  given 
by  Miinscher ,  edit,  by  Yon  Colin,  p.  192,  ss.)  [Qu.  60,  Art.  2.  Sacramen- 

6 


82 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


turn  est  signum  rei  sacrae,  inquantum  est  sanctijicans  homines.  Art.  3.  In 
qua  sanctificatione  tria  possunt  considerari :  videlicet,  ipsa  causa  sanctifica- 
tionis  nostrse,  quae  est  passio  Christi :  et  forma  nostrae  sanctificationis,  quae 
consistit  in  gratia  et  virtutibus  ;  et  ultimus  finis  sanctificationis  nostrae,  quae 
est  vita  aeterna.  Et  baec  omnia  per  sacramenta  significantur. — Qu.  61, 
Art.  1 :  they  are  necessary  to  human  salvation  in  a  threefold  way  :  1.  Be¬ 
cause  man  is  led  by  sensible  objects.  2.  By  sin,  he  is  under  the  sway  of 
what  is  corporeal.  3.  Human  action  is  chiefly  through  and  about  corporeal 
matters,  etc.] 

5  Qu.  62.,  Art.  1  :  Necesse  est  dicere  sacramenta  novae  legis  per  ali quern 

modurn  gratiam  causare . Et  dicendum  est,  quod  duplex  est  causa  agens, 

principalis  et  instrumental is.  Principalis  quidem  operatur  per  virtutem 
suae  formas,  cui  assimilatur  effectus,  sicut  ignis  suo  calore  calefacit.  Et  hoc 
modo  nihil  potest  causare  gratiam  nisi  Deus,  quia  gratia  nihil  est  aliud, 
quam  quaedam  participata  similitudo  divinae  naturae.  Causa  vero  instrumcn- 
talis  non  agit  per  virtutem  suae  formae,  sed  solum  per  motum,  quo  movetur 
a  principali  agente.  Unde  effectus  non  assimilatur  instrumento,  sed  princi- 
pali  agenti.  Et  hoc  modo  sacramenta  novae  legis  gratiam  causant. — Art.  5  : 
Unde  manifestum  est,  quod  sacramenta  ecclesiae  specialiter  habent  virtutem 
ex  passione  Christi,  cujus  virtus  quodammodo  nobis  copulatur  per  susceptio- 
nem  sacramentorum. — Art.  6  :  Per  fidem  passionis  Christi  justificabantur 
antiqui  patres,  sicut  et  nos.  Sacramenta  autem  veteris  legis  erant  quaedam 
illius  fidei  protestationes,  inquantum  significabant  passionem  Christi  et  effec¬ 
tus  ejus.  Sic  ergo  patet,  quod  sacramenta  veteris  legis  non  habebant  in  se 
aliquam  virtutem,  qua  operarentur  ad  conferendam  gratiam  justificantem ; 
sed  solum  significabant  fidem  per  quam  justificabantur.'* 

6  Innocent  III.  in  Decret.  Greg.  IX.  L.  iii.  T.  42,  c.  3  :  Et  is,  qui  ficte  ad 
baptismum  accedit,  characterem  suscipit  christianitatis  impressum.  Thomas , 
P.  iii.  Qu.  63,  Art.  2  :  Sacramenta  novse  legis  characterem  imprimunt. — The 
Concilium  Florentinum,  held  under  Pope  Eugen  IV.,  laid  down  the  following 
canon  (in  Mansi  T.  xxxi.  Col.  1054,  ss.)  :  Inter  haec  Sacramenta  tria  sunt, 
Baptismus,  Confirmatio  et  Ordo,  quae  characterem,  i.  e.  spirituale  quoddam 
signum  a  cseteris  distinctivum  imprimunt  in  anima  indelebile.  Unde  in 
eadem  persona  non  reiterantur .  Reliqua  vero  quatuor  characterem  non  im¬ 
primunt  et  reiterationem  admittunt.  (Nevertheless  a  difference  of  opinion 
respecting  the  repetition  of  extreme  unction,  took  place  on  occasion  of  the 
death  of  Pope  Pius  II.  Concerning  the  discussion  which  arose  between  the 
dying  Pope  and  Laurentius  Roverella,  bishop  of  Ferrara,  see  Platina  in  Vita. 
Pii  II.  Compare  below,  §  199,  note  3.) 

7  The  distinction  between  these  two  terms  was  best  defined  by  Gabriel 
Biel ,  in  Sent.  Lib.  iv.,  Hist.  1,  Qu.  3.  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  199) : 

°  “  The  notion  That  the  sacraments  of  the  Old  Testament  had  only  figured  the  divine  grace 
but  not  communicated  it,  was  rejected  by  John  Bonaventura  and  Scotus,  after  the  opposite 
doctrine  had  previously  been  propounded  by  the  Venerable  Bede ;  it  was,  however,  confirmed 
by  Pope  Eugen  IV.  at  the  Council  of  Florence .”  Munscher,  edit,  by  Von  Colin,  p.  -187  (the 
proofs  are  given  ibid.  pp.  198,  199).  The  doctrine  was  then  established,  that  the  sacra¬ 
ments  of  the  Old  Testament  produced  effects  ex  opere  oper antis,  those  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  exopere  operator  Comp.  Engelhardt,  Dogmengeschichte,  pp.  197,  198,  note. 


§  190.  The  Sacraments. 


83 


Sacramentum  dicitur  conferre  gratiam  ex  opere  operato,  ita  quod  ex  eo  ipso, 
quod  opus  illud,  puta  sacramentum,  exhibetur,  nisi  impediat  obex  peccati 
mortal  is,  gratia  confertur  utentibus,  sic  quod  prseter  exliibitionem  signi  foris 
exbibiti  non  requiritur  bonus  rnotus  interior  in  suscipiente.  Ex  opere  ope- 
rante  vero  dicuntur  Sacramenta  conferre  gratiam  per  modum  meriti ,  quod 
scilicet  sacramentum  foris  exhibitum  non  sufficit  ad  gratiae  collationem,  sed 
ultra  hoc  requiritur  bonus  motus  seu  devotio  interior  in  suscipiente,  secun¬ 
dum  cujus  intentionem  confertur  gratia,  tanquam  meriti  condigni  vel  con- 
grui,  prsecise,  et  non  major  propter  exhibitionem  sacramenti.  (This  latter 
view  was  also  that  of  Scotus.) 

8  Thomas ,  1.  c.  Qu.  64,  Art.  5  .  .Ministri  ecclesiae  possunt  sacramenta 

conferre,  etiamsi  sint  mali. — Art.  9  :  Sicut  non  requiritur  ad  perfectionem 
sacramenti,  quod  minister  sit  in  charitate,  sed  possunt  etiam  peccatores  sacra¬ 
menta  conferre,  ita  non  requiritur  ad  perfectionem  sacramenti  tides  ejus,  sed 
infidelis  potest  verum  sacramentum  praebere,  dummodo  caetera  adsint,  quae 
sunt  de  necessitate  sacramenti.  Concerning  the  intentio ,  compare  ibidem 
and  Art.  10.  Munscher ,  edit,  by  Yon  Colin,  p.  196.  Cramer ,  vii.  pp.  712, 
713.  [. Aquinas  opposed  the  view — quod  requiritur  mentalis  intentio  in  mi- 
nistro,  quae  si  desit,  non  perficitur  sacramentum ;  and  maintained,  quod  mi¬ 
nister  sacramenti  agit  in  persona  totius  ecclesiae  cujus  est  minister.  In  verbis 
autem  quae  profert  exprimitur  intentio  ecclesiae  ;  quae  sufficit  ad  perfectionem 
sacramenti ,  nisi  contrarium  externis  exprimatur  ex  parte  ministri,  vel  reci- 
pientis  sacramentum.  Comp,  also  Art.  10.] 

9  Compare  note  7. 

10  Wycliffe  criticised  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  very  acutely.  Trialo- 
gus  Lib.  iv.  c.  1.  ss.  In  his  opinion,  a  thousand  other  things  (in  their  quality 
of  rerum  sacrarum  signa)  might  be  called  sacraments,  with  quite  as  much 
propriety  as  the  seven  sacraments ....  Multa  dicta  in  ista  materia  habent 
nimis  debile  fundamentum,  et  propter  aggregationem  ac  institutionem  in 
terminis  difficile  est  loquentibus  habere  viam  impugnabilem  veritatis.  . .  .Yon 
enim  video,  quin  quselibet  creatura  sensibilis  sit  realiter  sacramentum,  quia 
signum  a  Deo  institutum  ut  rem  sacram  insensibilem  significet,  cujusmodi 
sunt  creator  et  creatio  et  gratia  creatoris.  Comp.  c.  25,  where  he  designated 
the  ceremonies  which  had  been  added  to  the  sacraments,  inventions  of  An¬ 
tichrist,  by  which  he  had  imposed  a  heavy  burden  upon  the  Church. — 
Wessel  expressed  himself  in  milder  terms  on  this  point;  he  did  not 
altogether  disapprove  of  certain  external  additions  (Chrisma),  since,  out 
of  reverence  the  Church  has  surrounded  the  sacraments  with  greater 
pomp ;  but,  concerning  their  effects,  he  opposed  the  doctrine  which  would 
represent  them  as  being  produced  ex  opere  operato,  and  he  made  salvation 
depend  on  the  disposition  of  him  who  receives  the  sacrament ;  De  Commun. 
Sanct.,  p.  817.  Ullmann ,  pp.  322,  333. 

11  Mosheim ,  1.  c.  p.  257  :  Dicunt,  se  credere,  quod  quidlibet  Laicus  bonus 
potest  conficere  corpus  Christi,  sicut  sacerdos  peccator.  Item,  quod  sacerdos, 
postquam  exuit  se  sacris  vestibus,  est  sicut  saccus  evacuatus  frumento.  Item, 
quod  corpus  Christi  sequaliter  est  in  quolibet  pane,  sicut  in  pane  sacramen¬ 
tal!  Item,  quod  confiteri  sacerdoti  non  est  necessarium  ad  salutem.  Item, 
quod  corpus  Christi  vel  sacramentum  Eucharistiae  sumere  per  Laicum,  tan- 


84 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


valet  pro  liberatione  animrn  defuncti,  sicut  celebratio  Missae  a  sacerdote. 
Item,  quod  omnis  concubitus  matrimonialis  prseter  ilium,  in  quo  speratur 
bonum  prolis,  sit  peccatum. — Comp.  Berthold's  Sermons,  edited  by  Kling, 
pp.  308,  309. 


§  191. 

BAPTISM. 

The  scholastics  exhibited  more  originality  in  their  discussions  on 
the  Lord’s  Supper,  than  in  their  inquiries  into  the  doctrine  of 
Baptism,  where  they  confined  themselves  rather  to  particular  points. 
In  adherence  to  the  allegorical  system  of  Cyprian,  they  adopted  the 
mystical  interpretation  of  the  water,  as  the  liquid  element,  but  ex¬ 
ercised  their  ingenuity  and  fondness  for  subtile  distinctions  in 
pedantic  definitions  concerning  the  fluids  to  be  used  at  the  perform¬ 
ance  of  the  rite  of  baptism.1  The  baptism  of  blood  was  as  well 
known  during  the  present  period  as  in  preceding  ages,  with  this  dif¬ 
ference  only,  that  it  was  performed  by  those  who  inflicted  tortures 
upon  themselves  (Flagellantes)  instead  of  by  martyrs.*  The  bap¬ 
tism  of  water  could  be  administered  by  none  but  priests,  except  in 
cases  of  necessity.3  The  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  had  long  been 
regarded  by  the  Church  as  a  settled  point ;  Peter  of  Bruis ,  how¬ 
ever,  and  some  mystical  sects,  spoke  of  it  in  a  slighting  way.4  As 
infants,  the  subjects  of  baptism  could  not  enter  into  any  engage¬ 
ment  themselves;  an  engagement  was  made  for  them  by  their 
godfathers  and  godmothers,  according  to  the  principle  of  Augus¬ 
tine  :  credit  in  altero,  qui  peccavit  in  altero.6 — Infant  baptism  was 
supposed  to  remove  orignal  sin,  but  it  did  not  take  away  the  concu- 
piscentia  (lex  fomitis),  though  it  lessened  it  by  means  of  the  grace 
imparted  in  baptism.6  In  the  case  of  grown  up  persons  who  are 
baptised,  baptism  not  only  effects  the  pardon  of  sins  formerly  com¬ 
mitted,  but  it  also  imparts,  according  to  Peter  Lombard ,  assisting 
grace  to  perform  virtuous  actions.7 — The  assertion  of  Thomas 
Aquinas ,  that  children  also  obtained  that  grace,8  was  confirmed  by 
Pope  Clement  Y.  at  the  Synod  of  Vienne  (a.  d.  1311. )9 

1  Compare  Cramer,  vii.  p.  715.  ss.  Peter  Lombard  taught,  Sent.  Lib.  iv. 
Dist.  3,  G  :  non  in  alio  liquore  potest  consecrari  baptismus  nisi  in  aqua ; 
others,  however,  thought  that  the  rite  of  baptism  might  also  be  performed 
with  air,  sand,  or  soil.  ( Schmid ,  J.  A.,  de  Baptismo  per  Arenam.  Helmst. 
1697.  4.)  Various  opinions  obtained  concerning  the  question,  whether  beer, 
broth,  fish-sauce,  mead  or  honey-water,  lye  or  rose-water,  might  be  used  in¬ 
stead  of  pure  water.  See  Meiners  and  Spittlers  Neues  Gottingen,  his- 
torisches  Magazin,  Vol.  iii.  part  2,  1793,  8,  (reprinted  from  Holderi  dubie- 
tatibus  circa  Baptismum) :  Augusti ,  theologische  Blatter,  Vol.  i.  p.  170,  ss., 


§  191.  Baptism. 


85 


and  his  Archseologie  vii.  p.  206,  ss.  The  scholastics  carried  their  absurdities 
so  far,  as  to  start  the  question :  Quid  faciendum,  si  puer  urinaret  (stercorizaret) 
in  fontem  ?  A  distinction  was  also  made  between  aqua  artificialis,  naturalis, 
and  usualis. — Many  other  useless  and  unprofitable  contentions  took  place 
about  the  baptismal  formulas ;  see  Holder ,  1.  c. — Sprinkling  also  (instead 
of  dipping)  gave  rise  to  many  discussions.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  preferred 
the  more  ancient  custom  (Summa  P.  iii.  Qu.  66,  Art.  6),  because  immersion 
reminded  Christians  of  the  burial  of  Christ :  but  he  did  not  think  it  abso¬ 
lutely  necessary.  From  the  thirteenth  century,  sprinkling  came  into  more 
general  use  in  the  West.  The  Greek  Church,  however,  and  the  Church  of 
Milan,  still  retained  the  practice  of  immersion  ;  see  Augusti ,  Archasologie 
vii.  p.  229,  ss.* — On  the  question  whether  it  was  necessary  to  dip  once, 
or  thrice,  see  Holder,  1.  c.  (he  has  collected  many  more  instances  of  the  in¬ 
genuity  and  acuteness  of  the  casuists  in  reference  to  all  possible  difficulties.) 

2  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  66,  Art.  11 . praeter  baptismum  aquae  potest 

aliquis  consequi  sacramenti  effectum  ex  passione  Christi,  inquantam  quis  ei 
conformatur  pro  Christo  patiendo. — Concerning  the  Flagellantes,  see  Forste- 
mann ,  die  christlichen  Geisslergesellschaften,  Halle,  1828. 

3  Peter  Lombard ,  Sent.  iv.  Hist.  6,  A  (after  Isidore  of  Spain)  :  Constat 
baptismum  solis  sacerdotibus  esse  traditum,  ej  usque  ministerium  nec  ipsis 
diaconis  implere  est  licitum  absque  episcopo  vel  presbvtero,  nisi  his  procul 
absentibus,  ultima  languoris  cogat  necessitas  :  quod  etiam  laicis  fidelibus 
permittitur. — Compare  Gratian.  in  Decret.  de  Consecrat.  Dist.  4,  c.  19. — 
Thomas  Aquinas ,  Summ.  P.  iii.  Qu.  67,  Art.  1-6.  (The  further  definitions 
belong  to  the  province  of  canon  law.) 

4  Comp.  Petr.  Yen.  Cluniacensis  adv.  Petrobrusianos,  in  Bibl.  PP.  Max. 
Lugd.  T.  xxii.  p.  1033. — The  Paulicians,  Bogomiles,  Cathari,  etc.,  opposed 
infant  baptism  ;  several  of  these  sects  ( e .  g .,  the  Cathari)  rejected  baptism 
by  water  altogether.  Comp.  Moneta ,  advers.  Catharos  et  Waldenses,  Lib. 
v.  c.  i.,  p.  277,  ss.  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  pp.  209,  210. 

‘  Comp.  Vol.  i.  §  137,  note  6,  p.  390,  Peter  Lombard ,  Sent.  L.  iv.  Hist. 
6,  G.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  68,  Art.  9  :  Begeneratio  spiritualis,  quae  fit  per 
baptismum,  est  quodammodo  similis  nativitati  carnali,  quantum  ad  hoc,  quod, 
sicut  pueri  in  maternis  uteris  constituti  non  per  se  ipsos  nutrimentum  ac- 
cipiunt,  sed  ex  nutrimento  matris  sustentantur,  ita  etiam  pueri  nondum 
habentes  usum  rationis,  quasi  in  utero  matris  ecclesiae  constituti,  non  per  se 
ipsos,  sed  per  actum  ecclesise  salutem  suscipiunt. — The  regulations  concerning 
the  ecclesiastical  relationship  in  which  the  godfathers  and  godmothers  stand 
to  each  other,  belong  to  the  canon  law.  Comp.  Peter  Lomb.  L.  iv.  Dist.  42. 
Thomas  Aquinas ,  P.  iii.  in  Supplem.  Qu.  56,  Art.  3. — Decretalia  Greg.  IX.  L. 
iv.  T.  11.  Sexti  Decretal.  L.  iv.  T.  3. 

0  Lombard ,  L.  ii.  Dist.  32,  A.  (in  accordance  with  Augustine)  :  Licet 
remaneat  concupiscentia  post  baptismum,  non  tamen  dominatur  et  regnat 
sicut  ante  :  imo  per  gratiam  baptismi  mitigatur  et  minuitur,  ut  post  dominari 

*  Various  regulations  concerning  the  right  performance  of  baptism  may  also  be  found 
in  Berthold's  Sermons,  pp.  442,  443.  Thus  it  is  there  said:  “Young  people  ought  not  to 
baptize  children  for  fun  or  mockery;  nor  ought  foolish  people  to  push  a  Jew  into  the 
water  contrary  to  his  wishes.  Such  doings  are  not  valid.” 


86 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


non  valeat,  nisi  qnis  reddat  vires  liosti  eundo  post  coneupiscentias.  Nec  post 
baptismum  remanet  ad  reatum,  quia  non  imputatur  in  peccatum,  sed  tantum 
poena  peccati  est;  ante  baptismum  vero  poena  est  et  culpa.  Compare  what 
follows.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Summ.  P.  ii.  Qu.  81,  Art.  3  :  Peccatum  originale 
per  baptismum  aufertur  reatu ,  inquantum  anima  recuperat  gratiam  quantum 
ad  mentem  :  remanet  tamen  peccatum  originale  actu ,  quantum  ad  fomitem , 
qui  est  inordinatio  partium  inferiorum  animse  et  ipsius  corporis.  Comp.  P. 
iii.  Qu.  27,  Art.  3. 

7  Lombard  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  4,  II :  De  adultis  enim,  qui  digne  recipiunt  sacra- 
mentum,  non  ambigitur,  quin  gratiam  operantem  et  cooperantem  perceperint. 

. De  parvulis  vero,  qui  nondum  ratione  utuntur,  qusestio  est,  an  in  bap- 

tismo  receperint  gratiam,  qua  ad  majorem  venientes  setatem  possint  velle  et 
operari  bonum.  Videtur  quod  non  receperint :  quia  gratia  ilia  cliaritas  est 
et  tides,  quae  voluntatem  prseparat  et  adjuvat.  Sed  quis  duxerit  eos  acce- 
pisse  fidem  et  charitatem  ?  Si  vero  gratiam  non  receperint,  qua  bene  operari 
possint  cum  fuerint  adulti,  non  ergo  sufiicit  eis  in  hoc  statu  gratia  in  bap- 
tismo  data,  nec  per  illam  possunt  modo  boni  esse,  nisi  alia  addatur :  quae  si 
non  additur,  non  est  ex  eorum  culpa,  quia  justificati  [ al .  non]  sunt  a  peccato. 
Quid  am  putant  gratiam  operantem  et  cooperantem  cunctis  parvulis  in  bap- 
tismo  dari  in  munere,  non  in  usu,  ut,  cum  ad  majorem  venerint  aetatem,  ex 
munere  sortiantur  usum,  nisi  per  liberum  arbitrium  usum  inuneris  extinguant 
peccando  :  et  ita  ex  culpa  eorum  est,  non  ex  defectu  gratiae,  quod  maii  hunt. 

8  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  69,  Art.  6  :  Quia  pueri,  sicut  et  adulti,  in  bap- 
tismo  efficiuntur  membra  Christi,  unde  necesse  est,  quod  a  capite  recipiant 
influxum  gratiae  et  virtutis. 

9  In  Mansi,  Tom.  xxv.  Col.  411,  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  p.  203. 
[Mansi,  Col.  411:  Baptisma  unicum. .  . . celebratum  in  aqua,  in  nomine 
Patris,  et  Filii,  et  Spiritus  Sancti,  credimus  esse  tarn  adultis  quam  parvulis 
communiter  perfectum  remedium  ad  salutem.  Verum  quantum  ad  effectum 
cum  theologi  varias  opiniones  habeant ;  videlicet  dicentibus  quibusdam,  par¬ 
vulis  culpam  remitti,  sed  gratiam  non  conferri ;  aliis  e  contra  assientibus 
quod  et  culpa  eisdem  in  baptismo  remittitur,  et  virtutes  ac  informans  gratia 
infunduntur  quoad  habitum,  etsi  non  pro  illo  tempore  quoad  usum :  nos 
attendentes  generalem  efficaciam  mortis  Christi,  quae  per  baptisma  applicatur 
pariter  omnibus  baptizatis,  opinionem  secundam,  quae  dicit  tarn  parvulis  quam 
adultis  conferri  in  baptismo,  gratiam  informantem  et  virtutes,  tanquam  pro- 
babiliorem  et  dictis  Sanctorum  et  doctorum  modernorum  theologize  magis 
consonam  et  concordem,  sacro  approbante  Concilio,  duximus  eligendam.] 

The  repetition  of  the  rite  of  baptism  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  nature  of  that 
sacrament.  But  theologians  differed  in  their  opinions  respecting  the  question,  whether 
those  who  are  prevented  by  circumstances  from  being  baptised,  may  be  saved  ?  In  oppo¬ 
sition  to  earlier  divines  (such  as  Rabanus  Maurus ),  later  theologians,  e.  g.  Bernard  of 
Clairval ,  Peter  Lombard ,  and  Thomas  Aquinas ,  maintained,  that  in  such  cases  the  will 
alone  was  sufficient.  Compare  the  passages  quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  pp. 
205,  206.  [Aquinas,  Qu.  68,  Art.  2 :  Alio  modo  potest  sacramentum  baptismi  alicui 
deesse  re,  sed  non  voto :  sicut  cum  aliquis  baptizari  desiderat,  sed  aliquo  casu  praevenitur 
morte,  antequam  baptismum  suscipiat.  Et  talis  sine  baptismo  actuali  salutem  coasequi 
potest  propter  desiderium  baptismi ,  quod  procedit  ex  fide  per  dilectionem  operante,  per 
quam  Deus  interius  hominem  sanctificat,  cujus  potentia  sacramentis  visibilibus  non 
alligatur.] 


§  192.  Confirmation. 


87 


§  192. 

CONFIRMATION. 

Klee,  Dogmengesehichte,  ii.  p.  160-170.  J.  F  Bachmann ,  Geschichte  der  Einfuhrung 
der  Confirmation  innerhalb  d.  Evangel.  Kirche.  Berlin,  1852.  \Jo.  Ballceus,  de 
duabus  Latinorum  ex  Unctione  Sacramentis,  Confirmatione  et  extrema  Unctione, 
Genev.,  1669.  Ibid.  De  Cultibus  religios.  Latinorum,  L.  ix.,  1671.  In  reply,  Natal 
Alexander ,  Hist.  Eccles.  Ssec.  II.  Diss.  x.  N.  Wiseman,  Lectures  on  the  Offices  and 
Ceremonies,  etc.  H.  Hepwood,  the  Order  and  History  of  Confirmation,  2d  ed.,  1850. 
Church  Review  (New  Haven),  Difference  of  Protest.  Episc.  and  Rom.  Cajth.  View 
of  Confirmation,  April,  1852.  T.  Smyth,  the  Rite  of  Confirmation,  1845.]* 

Confirmation  confirmatio)  originally  connected  with  bap¬ 

tism,  was,  in  the  course  of  time,  separated  from  it,  as  a  par¬ 
ticular  rite,  and  then  came  to  be  viewed  as  a  sacrament,  which 
only  the  bishop  could  administer.1  As  the  first  motion  to  spiritual 
life  is  the  effect  of  baptism,  so  its  growth  is  promoted  by  the  rite  of 
confirmation.  Its  characteristic  is  invigoration  ;2  and  so,  those  who 
are  made  members  of  this  spiritual  knighthood  were  smitten  on  the 
cheek.3  Moreover  baptism  must  precede  confirmation.4  Nor  ought 
the  latter  rite  to  be  performed  without  godfathers  and  godmothers.5 
All  these  regulations  were  confirmed  by  Pope  Eugen  IV.6  But 
Wy cliff e  and  Hus  declared  confirmation  to  be  an  abuse.7 

1  Compare  Augusti ,  Arcliaeologie,  vii.  p.  401,  ss.  On  the  origin  of  this 
sacrament,  and  its  reference  to  a  Council  of  Meaux  (Concilium  Meldense), 
as  alleged  by  Alexander  of  Hales,  see  Gieseler ,  Dogmengesch.  527.  [Alex¬ 
ander  got  this  notion  from  the  Decretum  Gratiani,  where  a  statement  about 
Confirmation  is  headed — Ex  Concil.  Meldens.  But  the  passage  is  from  a 
Paris  Council,  a.  d.  829.  But  Alexander,  though  wrong,  seems  uncon¬ 
sciously  to  imply,  that  a  sacrament  might  be  directly  instituted  by  the 
'  church ;  which  Aquinas  denies,  saying,  that  the  sacraments  must  be  ap¬ 
pointed  or  promised  by  Christ.] 

a  Melchiades  in  Epist.  ad  Hisp.  Episcopos  (in  Peter  Lombard ,  Sent.  Lib. 
iv.  Dist.  7) ;  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Art.  6,  and  7  (quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by 
von  Colin,  pp.  211,  212).  [ Melchiades  (in  Pseudo-Isidor.)  says:  Sp.  S.  in 

fonte  plenitudinem  tribuit  ad  innocentiam:  in  confirmatione  augmentum 
praestat  ad  gratiam.  Et  quia  in  hoc  mundo  tota.  setate  victoris  inter  invisi- 
biles  hostes  et  pericula  gradiendum  est :  in  baptismo  regeneramur  ad  vitam, 
post  baptismum  confirmamur  ad  pugnam . . . .  Aquinas,  Art.  6  :  Character 
confirmation^  ex  necessitate  prcesupponit  characterem  baptismalem :  ita 
scilicet  quod,  si  aliquis  non  baptizatus  confirmaretur,  nihil  reciperet,  sed 
oporteret  iter  a  to  ipsum  confirmari  post  baptismum  (against  the  Catharists.)] 
Bonaventura  Brevil.  P.  vi.  c.  8,  quoted  by  Klee,  Dogmengesehichte,  ii.  p. 
165.  [ Bonaventura  says  :  Primo  ergo,  quoniam  confessio  haec  debet  esse 

integra,  et  integritas  confessionis  non  est,  nisi  quis  confiteatur  Christum 
verum  hominem  pro  hominibus  crucifixum,  eundemque  verum  Dei  filium  in- 


88 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


carnatum  in  Trinitate  Patri  et  Spiritui  Sancto  per  omnia  sequalem,  bine  est, 
quod  in  forma  vocali  non  tantam  fit  expressio  actus  confirmandi,  verum  etiam 
ipsius  signi  crucis,  et  nominis  beatissimse  Trinitatis. — As  it  should,  sec¬ 
ondly,  he  placid  and  pleasing  to  God,  oil  of  olives  and  balsam,  etc.,  are  used. 
Postremo,  quia  tabs  confessio  debet  esse  intrepida,  ut  nec  pudore,  nec 
timore  dimittat  quis  dicere  veritatem,  et  tempore  persecution^  ignominiosam 
mortem  Christi  in  cruce  confiteri  publice  formidat  quis  et  erubescit.  .  . .  et 
hujus  modi  timor  et  pudor  potissime  apparet  in  fronte,  ideo  ad  omnem  vere- 
cundiam  et  formidinem  propulsaudam  et  manus  potestativa  imponitur,  qua3 
confirm  et  et  crux  fronti  imprimitur.  Klee ,  ubi  supra,  pp.  165-6,  note.] 

*  According  to  Augusti  (1.  c.  pp.  450,  451),  this  strange  usage  was  not 
known  previous  to  the  thirteenth  century  ;  but  Klee  asserts  (Dogmengesch. 
ii.  p.  165)  that  it  existed  as  early  as  the  eleventh  century.  At  all  events,  it 
seems  more  likely  that  it  had  its  origin  in  the  customs  of  the  Knights  (as 
Klee  supposes),  than  in  certain  rites  which  were  observed  when  apprentices 
had  served  out  their  time  (according  to  Augusti).  But  the  proper  element 
of  this  sacrament  was  the  Chrisma,  confectum  ex  oleo  olivarum.  Compare 
the  authorities  cited  in  notes  2  and  6.  [Th e*form  was  in  the  laying  on  of 
hands  by  the  bishop,  anointing  the  forehead  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  using 
the  formula  :  Consigno  te  signo  crucis ,  et  confirmo  te  chrismate  salutis ,  in 
nomine  Patris,  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti.  Amen. 

4  Thomas  Aquinas ,  1.  c*. :  Character  confirmationis  ex  necessitate  prassup- 
ponit  characterem  baptismalem,  etc.  Confirmation,  too,  has  a  character  in- 
delebilis  ;  hence  it  is  not  to  be  repeated. 

5  Concerning  the  godfathers  and  godmothers,  see  Augusti ,  1.  c.  p.  434. 
Thomas  Aquinas ,  Art.  10  ;  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  214.  The  re¬ 
lation  of  godfathers  and  godmothers  in  confirmation,  is  also  a  basis  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  relationship.  [This  spiritual  relationship  is  also  considered  as  a 
hindrance  to  marriage.  Boniface  VIII.  (1295)  in  sexto  Decretal.  L.  iv.,  Tit. 
3,  cap.  1  ;  Ex  confirmatione  quoque,  sen  frontis  chrismatione  spiritnalis  cog- 
natio  eisdem  modis  (as  in  baptism)  contrahitur,  matrimonia  similiter  impedi- 
cus  contrahenda,  et  dirimens  post  contracta.] 

6  Cone.  Florent.  Col.  1055,  quoted  by  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  p.  215.* 
[The  Florence  Council  declared  the  matter  of  the  sacrament  to  be — Chrisma 
confectum  ex  oleo :  the  form  (as  above,  note  3) ;  the  bishop  to  be  the  ordi¬ 
nary  administrator.  The  effect  was — robur.  Ideoque  in  fronte,  ubi  verecundiae 
sedes  est,  confirmandus  inungitur ,  ne  Christi  nomen  confiteri  erubescat,  et 
praecipue  crucem  ejus.  .  .propter  quod  signo  crucis  signatur.] 

1  Trialog.  Lib.  iv.  c.  14.  Schrockh,  Kircheng.  xxxiv.  p.  508.  He  doubted 
whether  confirmation  could  be  proved  from  Acts  viii.  17  (as  was  generally 
supposed),  and  called  it  blasphemy,  to  maintain  that  bishops  might  again 
impart  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  had  already  been  imparted  by  baptism. — 
Hus ,  Art.  ii.  apud  Trithem.  Chron.  Hirsaug.  ann.  1402.  Klee ,  1.  c.  p.  164. 
[The  Council  of  Trent  is  against  Hus,  etc.  in  several  canons.  Sessio  vii.  De 
Conf.  Can.  i.  ii.] 

*  The  Greek  Church  has  the  sacrament  of  confirmation  as  well  as  the  Latin ;  only 
(according  to  the  older  tradition  of  the  church)  it  is  performed  immediately  after  baptism, 
and  every  priest  is  empowered  to  do  it:  see  Art.  Greek  Church,  in  Herzog's  Realeneyclop. 


§  193.  The  Lord’s  Supper. 


89 


§  193. 

THE  LORD’S  SUPPER. 

1.  The  Controversy  on  the  Eucharist  'previous  to  the  Rise  of  Scho¬ 
lasticism.  Paschasius  Radbert  and  Ratramn.  Berengar. 

Marheineke  (comp.  vol.  i.  §  *73),  p.  66,  ss.  Ebrard ,  i.  385.  Gfrorer,  Uber  Pseudo-Isidor, 
in  the  Freib.  Kath.  Zeitschrift,  184?,  p.  23?,  sq. 

Though  at  the  beginning  of  this  period,  forms  of  statement  are 
sometimes  employed,  which  can  be  interpreted  of  the  Lord’s  Supper 
in  a  symbolical  sense,1  yet  the  usage,3  fixed  by  the  liturgies,  was 
constantly  shaped  more  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion.  The  violent  controversy  between  the  monks,  Paschasius 
Radbert  and  Ratramn ,3  which  degenerated  into  the  most  obscene 
discussions,  and  gave  rise  to  appellations  not  less  offensive,  became 
the  signal  for  new  contests.  The  most  eminent  theologians  of  the 
age,  such  as  Rabanus  Maurus ,4  and  Scotus  Erigena ,5  took  an  active 
part  in  the  dispute.  Gerbert ,  whose  reputation  was  great  in  those 
days,  endeavored  to  illustrate  the  doctrine  propounded  by  Paschasius, 
of  a  real  change  of  the  bread  into  the  body  of  Christ,  by  the  aid  of 
geometrical  diagrams.6  It  had  been  so  generally  adopted,  as  the 
orthodox  doctrine,  towards  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century,  that 
Berengar ,  Canon  of  Tours,  and  afterwards  Archdeacon  at  Angers, 
who  ventured  to  express  doubts  concerning  its  correctness  in  a  letter 
addressed  to  Lanfranc ,  was  condemned,  and  obliged  by  several 
synods  (at  Vercelli  and  Pome,  1050-1079)  to  retract.  ^He  would 
have  suffered  still  more,  if  Pope  Gregory  VII.  had  not  at  last  suc¬ 
ceeded  in  protecting  him  against  the  rage  of  his  enemies.7  Berengar, 
however,  was  far  from  rejecting  every  more  spiritual  conception,  than 
that  of  a  mere  sign.  Nor  did  he  take  offence  at  the  use  of  the 
phrase,  “  to  partake  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,”  but  he  ex¬ 
plained  it  in  a  more  or  less  ideal  manner.8  On  the  other  hand,  Car¬ 
dinal  Humbert  was  carried  so  far  by  his  violent  zeal,  as  to  interpret 
the  phrase  in  question  in  the  grossest  (Capernaitic)  manner.9  It 
then  became  impossible  to  adopt  any  moderate  view  ;  and  later 
theologians  found  little  more  to  do  than  to  conceal  the  more  objec¬ 
tionable  aspect  of  the  doctrine  by  an  increased  subtlety  of  argu¬ 
mentation,  and  to  surround  the  impenetrable  mystery,  as  it  were, 
with  a  thorny  hedge  of  syllogisms,  as  is  exemplified  in  the  scho¬ 
lastic  distinction  made  by  Lanfranc  between  the  subject  and  the 
accidents.10 

1  Thus  in  the  Venerable  Bede  (in  Marci  Evangel.  Opera,  Tom.  v.  p.  192, 
and  elsewhere),  the  passage  in  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  223,  sq. 


90 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


[He  says,  it  is  instituted,  in  suse  redemptions  memoriam  :  and,  panem  certi 
qnoque  gratia  sacramenti ,  priusquam  frangeret,  benedixit.  In  his  Homil. 
Hiemalis  (Tom.  vii.,  col.  320),  lie  says  that  the  bread  and  wine — in  sacra- 
menturn  carnis  et  sanguinis  ejus  ineffabili  Spiritus  sanctificatione  transfertur.] 
So,  too,  in  Walafried  Strabo  ( Ebrard ,  366),  Alcuin ,  etc.  As  early  as 
the  times  of  Charlemagne,  however,  theologians  seemed  agreed,  that,  in  the 
bread  and  the  wine  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  we  are  to  adore  more  than  mere 
signs,  De  impio  Imaginum  Cultu  Lib.  vi.  c.  14,  p.  461)  ;  see  Munscher ,  von 
Colin,  224,  sq.  Amalarius  of  Metz  speaks  out  with  special  emphasis  (about 
820)  ;  in  the  Spicileg.  T.  vii.  (see  Ebrard ,  363  :)  Ecclesiae  sacrificium  prsesens 
'mandendum  esse  ab  humano  ore  ;  credit  namque  corpus  et  sanguinem 
Domini  esse,  et  hoc  morsu  benedictione  coelesti  impleri  animas  sumentium. 
Moreover,  he  will  not  decide,  utrum  invisibiliter  assumatur  in  coelum  an 
reservetur  in  corpore  nostro  usque  in  diem  sepulturse,  an  exhaletur  in  auras, 
aut  exeat  de  corpore  cum  sanguine,  an  per  poros  emittatur. 

2  Compare  Ebrard ,  ubi  supra,  370,  sq. 

5  Paschasius  Radbert  (monachius  Corbeiensis)  in  his  Liber  de  Corpore  et 
Sanguine  Domini  (addressed  to  the  Emperor  Charles  the  Bald,  between  the 
years  830  and  832.)  See  Martene  and  Durand ,  T.  ix.  col.  367-470,  and 
extracts  from  it  in  Dossier ,  x.  p.  616,  ss.  Lie  started  from  the  omnipotence 
of  God,  to  whom  all  things  are  possible,  and  consequently  maintained  ii.  2  ; 
sensibilis  res  intelligibiliter  virtute  Dei  per  verbum  Christi  in  carnem  ipsius 
ac  sanguinem  divinitus  transfertur.  He  looked  upon  the  elements  as  no 
more  than  a  veil  (in  a  Docetic  way)  which  deceives  our  senses,  and  keeps 
the  body  of  Christ  concealed  from  us  :  Figura  videtur  esse  dum  frangitur, 
dum  in  specie  visibili  aliud  intelligitur  quam  quod  visu  carnis  et  gustu  sen- 
titur.  It  is  the  same  body  which  was  born  of  Mary. — At  times  the  true 
body  of  Christ  has  appeared  to  those  who  doubted  (in  order  to  encourage 
them),  as  well  as  to  those  who  were  strong  in  the  faith  (in  order  to  reward 
them),  instead  of  the  bread  (for  the  most  part  in  the  form  of  a  lamb),  or  stains 
of  blood  have  been  perceived,  etc.* — lie  was  opposed  by  Ratramn  (Ber- 
tranm)  in  his  treatise  :  De  Corpore  et  Sanguine  Domini  ad  Carolum  Calvum 
(it  was  written  at  the  request  of  the  king  ;  extracts  are  given  by  Schrockh, 
xxiii.  p.  445  ;  'Neamder ,  iv. ;  and  Munscher, edit.  by  von  Cblln,  p.  230-235.) 
[Extracts  in  Gieseler  (Ndw  York  ed.)  ii.  80,  sq.  An  English  translation  of 
Ratramn  was  published  in  1548,  1549.  Sir  Llumphrey  Lynde  made  another, 
1623,  reprinted,  1686.  Dr.  Hopkins,  canon  of  Worcester,  published  the 
text  and  an  English  version,  1686,  exposing  the  corruptions  of  Boileau’s 
version;  another  edition,  1688.  It  has  been  republished  at  Oxford  several 
times.  An  American  edition  was  published  in  Baltimore  (with  the  Saxon 
Homily  of  LElfric),  in  1843.]  Ratramn  properly  distinguished  between 
the  sign,  and  the  thing  represented  by  it  (figura  et  veritas),  the  internal  and 
the  external,  and  pointed  out  the  true  significance  of  the  mysteries ,  which 
consists  in  this,  that  through  their  medium  the  mind  of  man  rises  from  the 
visible  to  the  invisible.  If  it  were  possible  to  eat  the  body  of  Christ,  in 
the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  faith  would  be  no  longer  required,  and  the 


*  Concerning  such  miraculous  appearances,  compare  also  Bossuet,  edited  by  Cramer,  v. 
2.  p.  105. 


§  193.  The  Lord's  Supper. 


91 


mystery,  as  such,  would  lose  all  its  significance.  The  gross  reality  would 
destroy  the  idea,  and  nothing  but  a  mere  materialialism  would  remain. 
Ratramn  also  supposed  a  conversio  of  the  bread  and  wine  into  the  body  of 
Christ,  but  only  in  the  ideal  sense  of  the  word,  as  the  ancient  church  held  to  a 
transition  from  the  profane  to  the  pure  (sub  velainento  corporei  panis  corpo- 
reique  vini  spirituale  corpus  Christi  spiritualisque  sanguis  existit).  The 
mnemonic  character  is  emphasized ;  and  he  also  appealed  to  the  authority 
of  earlier  writers.  Respecting  the  later  appellation,  S  ter  cor  odists  (in  allusion 
to  Matt.  xv.  17),  which  had  its  origin  in  these  discussions  (Paschasius,  c.  20, 
2),  see  Sckroc/ch,  xxiii.  p.  493,  ss.,  and  Pfoff.  C.  M.  ;  Tractatus  de  Sterco- 
ranistis  medii  mvi.  Tub.  1750,  4°.*  [Comp.  Neander ,  Hist.  Login.  457,  sg.] 

4  The  treatise  of  Rabanus  addressed  to  Egilo,  abbot  of  Prum,  was  pro¬ 
fessedly  edited  by  Mabillon  (Acta  SS.  T.  vi.)  ;  but  both  Munscher ,  ed.  by 
von  Colin,  p.  229,  and  Neander ,  Church  Hist.  iii.  457,  sq .,  deny  the  genuine¬ 
ness  of  that  edition.  The  real  opinion  of  Rabanus  may  be  inferred  from  the 
following  passage  (Le  Justit.  Cleric,  i.  c.  31,  and  iii.  13,  quoted  by  Gieseler , 

ii.  p.  80,  §  14,  note,  and  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  1.  c.)  :  Maluit  enim 
Lominus  corporis  et  sanguinis  sui  sacramenta  fidelium  ore  percipi,  et  in  pas- 
tum  eoruin  redigi,  ut  per  visibile  opus  invisibilis  ostenderetur  effectus.  Sicut 
enim  cibus  materialis  forinsecus  nutrit  corpus  et  vegetat,  ita  etiam  verbum 
Lei  intus  animam  nutrit  et  roborat. . . .  Sacramentum  ore  percipitur,  virtute 
sacramenti  interior  homo  satiatur.  Sacramentum  in  alimentum  corporis 
redigitur,  virtute  autem  sacramenti  seterna  vita  adipiscitur. 

6  This  was  at  least  the  common  opinion  (compare  the  letter  of  Berengar 
to  Lanfranc).  It  is,  however,  uncertain,  whether  the  treatise  (de  Eucharistia) 
commonly  ascribed  to  Scotus,  which  was  condemned  by  the  Synod  of  Ver- 
celli  (a.  d.  1050),  is  the  same  with  the  treatise  ascribed  to  Ratramn  (as 
De  Marca  says,  who  ascribes  it  to  Scotus),  or  whether  we  have  here  two 
distinct  treatises ;  see  Gieseler ,  as  above.  F.  W.  Lauf  (Studien  und  Kriti- 
ken,  1828,  part  4,  p.  7 55,  ss.),  ascribes  the  authorship  to  Ratramn,  and  de¬ 
nies  it  of  Scotus.  Compare  also  Neander ,  as  above  ;  he  thinks  it  probable, 
^  that  Scotus  gave  his  opinion  on  the  subject  in  question,  though  the  notion 
of  a  lost  treatise  written  by  him  may  have  arisen  from  a  mistake.  To  judge 
from  some  passages  contained  in  his  treatise  Le  Liv.  Nat.  (quoted  by  Nean¬ 
der,  1.  c.)  he  would  not  have  given  countenance  to  the  doctrine  propounded 
by  Paschasius.  [ Neander ,  Hist.  Logm.  459,  says  that  the  doctrine  of  Scotus 
was  as  follows  :  He  taught  like  some  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  that  the  glorified 
body  of  Christ  by  its  union  with  the  divinity  was  freed  from  the  defects  of 
a  sensuous  nature.  He  impugned  those  who  said,  that  the  body  of  Christ 
after  the  resurrection  occupied  some  limited  space,  and  held  to  its  ubiquity. 

*  A  controversy  of  quite  as  unprofitable  a  nature  was  carried  on  between  the  above 
named  Amalariys  (who  composed  a  liturgical  work  about  the  year  820),  and  the  priest 
Guntrad ,  concerning  spitting  during  the  celebration  of  the  mass ;  see  d'Achery ,  Spicil.  T. 

iii.  in  Schrockh ,  Kirchengesch.  xxiii.  p.  496.  G-erbert  (De  Corpore  et  Sanguine  Christi)  re¬ 
marks  against  the  Stercoranistic  inferences  :  Et  nos  ssepe  vidimus  non  modo  infirmos, 

sed  etiam  sanos,  quod  per  se  intromittunt,  per  vomitum  dejecisse . subtilior  tamen 

succus  per  membra  usque  ad  ungues  diffundebatur.  “  That  surely  was  medicinal Ebrard, 
p.  439. 


92 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


He  denied  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  admitted  a  spiritual  pre¬ 
sence  at  the  Supper  :  Christ’s  presence  here  is  a  symbol  of  his  presence 
everywhere.] 

8  De  Corpore  et  Sanguine  Domini,  edited  by  Pez,  in  Thesaur.  Anecdd. 
Noviss.  T.  i.  P.  ii.  f.  133.  Schrockh ,  xxiii.  p.  493.*  Gerbert  also  tried  to 
make  clear  the  relation  between  Christ,  the  Supper,  and  the  church,  in  a 
logical  way,  by  the  three  terms  of  the  syllogism,  or  the  three  parts  of  an 
arithmetical  proportion  ;  see  Ritter ,  vii.  304  ;  Ebrard ,  438. 

7  On  the  external  history  of  the  controversy,  see  Mabillon ,  J.  Dissert,  de 
multiplici  Berengarii  Damnatione,  Fidei  Professione  et  Relapsu,  deque  ejus 
Peenitentia,  in  J.  Vogtii  Biblioth.  Hseresiolog.  Hamb.,  1723.  Tom.  i.  Fasc. 
i.  p.  99,  ss. ;  Schrockh ,  xxiii.  p.  507,  ss. ;  Neander,  iv. :  and  Gieseler,  ii.  §  29. 
— Sources  from,  which  his  opinions  may  be  ascertained ,  are :  the  Epistles  of 
his  school-fellow,  Adelmann ,  De  Yeritate  Corp.  et  Sang.  Domini,  ad  Beren- 
gariuni  (which  he  wrote  previous  to  his  nomination  as  bishop  of  Brixen  in 
Tyrol,  a.  d.  1049),  edited  by  J.  Coster ,  Lovan,  1551,  in  Biblioth,  Patrum  T. 
xviii.,  and  by  Schmidt,  Brunsv.,  1770.  8  ;  Hugonis  Lingonensis  Lib.  de  Cor¬ 
pore  et  Sanguine  Dom.  (d’Achery  in  Opp.  Lanfranci.  Append,  p.  68,  ss. 
Biblioth.  Patrum  T.  xviii.  p.  417,  ss.) ;  Lanfrancus ,  de  Corp.  et  Sang.  Dom. 
ad  versus  Berengar.  Turonens.  which  was  composed  between  the  years  1063 
and  70),  in  Opp.  ed.  L.  d’Achery,  Lutet.  1648,  and  Biblioth..  Patrum  T.  xviii. 
p.  763-777.  This  work  also  contains  the  first  treatise  which  Berengar 
wrote  in  opposition  to  Lanfranc,  from  which  we  must  distinguish  his 
second  :  Liber  de  sacra  Coena  advers.  Lanfrancum  (edited  by  Staudlin  in  6 
programmes.  Gott.  1820-29,  4.) — Comp.  Lessing ,  Gotth .  Ephr.,  Beren- 
garius  Turonensis,  Braunschweig,  1770,  4  (in  the  edition  of  his  complete 
works  publ.  Berlin,  1825,  ss.,  vol.  xii.  p.  143,  ss.)  ;  Staudlins  and  Tzschir- 
ners  Arcliiv  fur  Kirehengeschichte,  vol.  ii.  part.  i.  p.  1-98.  ^Berengarii 
Turonensis  quae  supersunt  tam  edita  quam  inedita,  typis  expressa,  moderante 
A.  Neandro  T.  i.  Berol.  1834.  (Berengarii  de  Sacra  Ccenaadv.  Lanfrancum, 
liber  posterior,  e  codice  Guelferbytano  primum  ediderunt  A.  E.  et  F.  Th. 
Vischer.  ibid.  1834.)  A  more  detailed  account  of  the  literature  is  given  by 
Gieseler,  1.  c.  Leading  historical  facts  :  The  first  condemnation  of  Berengar, 
a.  d.  1050,  at  Rome  under  Pope  Leo  IX.,  without  an  opportunity  of  defence. 
— The  repetition  of  the  sentence  passed  upon  him  at  Vercelli  in  the  same 
year. — On  the  supposed  council  of  Paris,  see  Neander,  1.  c. — Council  at 
Tours  (a.  d.  1054.) — Berengar’s  justification  with  the  assistance  of  Hilde¬ 
brand. — Another  council  at  Rome  (a.  d.  1059.) — The  violent  conduct  of 
Humbert. — The  inconstancy  manifested  by  Berengar  in  this  matter. — Cor¬ 
respondence  with  Lanfranc. — Other  Synods  at  Rome  (a.  d.  1078  and  1079. 
— Berengar  again  submitted  to  sign  the  confession  of  faith  drawn  up  by  his 
enemies,  but  retracted  afterwards. — The  Litterae  Commendatitise  of  Pope 
Gregory  VII. — -Berengar’ s  death  on  the  isle  of  St.  Come,  near  Tours,  a.  d. 
1088. 

*  Gerbert’s  method  of  illustrating  such  supernatural  truths  by  ocular  demonstration, 
was  imitated  even  by  later  theologians.  Thus  Melancthon  informs  us,  that  his  tutor 
Lem, pus,  at  Tubingen,  drew  a  representation  of  transubstantiation  on  a  board  (Ep.  de 
suis  studiis,  written  a.  d.  1541.  See  Galle,  Melancthon,  p.  G.) 


§  193.  The  Lord's  Supper. 


93 


8  Berengar  combated  principally  the  doctrine  of  an  entire  change ,  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  make  the  bread  cease  to  be  bread,  and  to  have  nothing  left 
but  the  accidents,  for  then  in  reality  a  portiuncula  carnis  was  eaten  instead  of 
bread.  In  accordance  with  the  earlier  fathers,  he  retained  the  doctrine  of  a 
change  from  an  inferior  to  a  superior  form,  and  of  a  mystical  participation  in 
the  body  of  Christ  under  the  figure  of  bread,  p.  67  (edit.  Yischer)  :  Dum 
enim  dicitur  :  panis  et  vinum  sacramenta  sunt,  minime  panis  aufertur  et 
vinum,  et  nominibus  rerum  lta  natarum  significativis  aptatur  nomen,  quod 
non  nata  sunt,  ut  est  sacramentum  ;  simul  etiam  esse  aliud  aliquid  minime 
prohibentur,  sunt  enim,  sicut  secundum  religionem  sacramenta ,  ita  secundum 
aliud  alimenta ,  sustentamenta.  The  subject,  of  which  anything  is  pre¬ 
dicated,  must  remain  the  same ,  otherwise  that  which  is  predicated  would 
have  no  meaning.  Pag.  71 :  Dun  dicitur :  panis  in  altari  consecratur,  vel  panis 
sanctus,  panis  sacrosanctus  est  Christi  corpus,  omni  veritate  panis  superesse 
conceditur.  Verbi  gratia,  si  enuntias :  Socrates  justus  est,  aliquid  eum  esse 
constituisti,  nec  potest  justus  esse,  si  contingat,  Socratem  non  esse.  Pag.  76  : 
Sicut  enim,  qui  dicit :  Christus  est  lapis  angularis,  non  revera  Christum  lapi- 
dem  esse  constituit,  sed  propter  aliquam  similitudinem,  quam  ad  se  invicem 
gerunt,  tale  nomen  ei  imponit,  eodem  modo,  cum  divina  pagina  corpus 
domini  panem  vocat,  sacrata  acmystica  locutione  id  agit.  Pag.  86:  Quando 
autem  afferuntur  ad  altare  vel  ponuntur  in  altari,  adhuc  sunt,  ut  ait  beatus 
Augustinus  contra  Faustum,  alimenta  refectionis,  nondum  sacramenta  reli- 
gionis,  (h)ac  per  hoc,  nondum  corpus  Christi  et  sanguis  existentia,  non  tropica, 
sed  propria  sunt  locutione  pendenda.  Dicens  ergo  Humbertus  ille  tuus, 
panem,  qui  ponitur  in  altari,  post  consecrationem  esse  corpus  Christi,  panem 
propria  locutione,  corpus  Christi  tropica  accipiendum  esse  constituit,  et  illud 
quidem  recte,  quia  ex  auctoritate  scripturarum. — Pag.  90  :  Dicitur  autem  in 
scripturis  panis  altaris  de  pane  fieri  corpus  Christi,  sicut  servus  malus  dicitur 
fieri  de  malo  servo  bonus  filius,  non  quia  amiserit  animse  proprise  naturam 
aut  corporis. — Pag.  91  :  Unde  insanissimum  dictuerat  et  christianse  religioni 
contumeliosissimum,  corpus  Christi  de  pane  vel  de  quocunque  confici  per 
generationem  subjecti . ut  pane  absumto  per  corruptionem  subjecti  cor¬ 

pus  Christi  esse  incipiat  per  generationem  subjecti,  quia  nec  pro  parte,  nec 
pro  toto  potest  incipere  nunc  esse  corpus  Christi. — Pag.  95  :  Novit  autem 
revera  secundum  carnem  Christum,  qui  Christi  corpus  asserit  adhuc  esse  cor- 
ruptioni  vel  generationi  obnoxium,  vel  quarumcunque  qualitatum  vel  col- 
lineationum,  quas  prius  non  habuerit,  susceptivum. — Pag.  98 :  Denique 
verbum  caro  factum  assumsit  quod  non  erat,  non  amittens  quod  erat,  et 
panis  consecratus  in  altari  amisit  vilitatem,  amisit  inefficaciam,  non  amisit 
naturae  proprietatem,  cui  naturae  quasi  loco,  quasi  fundamento  dignitas  divini- 
tus  augeretur  et  efficacia.  (A  comparison  is  drawn  between  the  change  in 
question,  and  the  change  at  the  conversion  of  Saul  into  Paul,  p.  144.) — 
Pag.  161  :  Est  ergo  vera  procul  dubio  panis  et  vini  per  consecrationem 
altaris  conversio  in  corpus  Christi  et  sanguinem,  sed  attendendum,  quod 

dicitur  :  per  consecrationem ,  quia  hie  est  hujus  conversionis  modus,  etc . 

Pag.  163  :  Per  consecrationem,  inquam,  quod  nemo  interpretari  poterit:  per 
subjecti  corruptionem. — Pag.  167  :  Sed  quomodo  manducandns  est  Christus? 
Quomodo  ipse  dicit :  qui  manducat  carnem  meam  et  bibit  sanguinem  meum, 


94 


i 

Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 

in  me  manet  et  ego  in  eo  ;  si  in  me  manet,  et  ego  in  illo,  tunc  manducat, 
tnnc  bibit ;  qui  autem  non  in  me  manet,  nee  ego  in  illo,  etsi  accipit  sacra- 
mentum,  adquirit  magnum  tormentum. — Pag.  1 71  :  Apud  eruditos  enim 
constat,  et  eis,  qui  vecordes  non  sint,  omnino  est  perceptibile,  nulla  ratione 
colorem  videri,  nisi  contingat  etiam  coloratum  videri.  Ita  enim  scribit  Lan- 
francus,  colorem  et  qualitates  portiunculae  carnis  Cbristi,  quam  sensualiter 
esse  in  altari  desipit,  videri  oculis  corporis,  ut  tamen  caro  ilia,  cujus  color 
videtur,  omnino  sit  invisibilis,  cum  constet,  omne  quod  in  subjecto  est,  sicut, 
ut  sit,  ita  etiam,  ut  videatur,  non  a  se  babere,  sed  a  subjecto,  in  quo  sit,  nee 
visu  vel  sensuo  aliquo  corporeo  comprehendi  colorem  vel  qualitatem,  nisi 
comprehenso  quali  et  colorato.* — Pag.  188  :  Rerum  exteriorum  est,  panis  et 
vini  est,  confici,  consecrari ;  hsec  incipere  possunt  esse,  quod  non  erant,  cor¬ 
pus  Cliristi  et  sanguis,  sed  per  consecrationem,  non  per  corruptionem  panis 
et  vini  et  generationem  corporis  Christi  et  sanguinis,  quae  constat  semel 

potuisse  generari. — Pag.  191  : . Yerissimum  est  nee  ulla  tergiversatione 

dissimulari  potest,  aliud  esse  totum  corpus  Christi,  quod  ante  mille  annos  sibi 
fabricavit  in  utero  virginis  sapientia  Dei,  aliud  portiunculam  carnis,  quam  tu 
tibi  facis  de  pane  per  corruptionem  panis  ipsius  hodie  factam  in  altari  per 
generationem  ipsius  carnis. — Further  passages  are  quoted  by  Gieseler,  ii.  as 
above,  p.  172,  sq .,  ss.  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  p.  242,  ss.  Comp,  espe¬ 
cially  his  confession  of  faith  made  (though  with  reservation)  at  the  Synod 
of  Rome  (a.  d.  1078),  in  Mansi,  xix.  p.  761.  Gieseler ,  ii.  §  29  :  Profiteor, 
panem  altaris  post  consecrationem  esse  verum  corpus  Christi,  quod  natum  est 
de  virgine,  quod  passum  est  in  cruce,  quod  sedet  ad  dexteram  Patris,  et  vinum 
altaris,  postquam  consecratum  est,  esse  verum  sanguinem,  qui  manavit  de 
latere  Christi.  Et  sicut  ore  pronuncio,  ita  me  corde  habere  confirmo.  Sic 
me  adjuvet  Deus  et  hsec  sacra. 

9  According  to  the  confession  of  faith  imposed  by  Humbert  upon  Beren- 
gar  at  the  Synod  of  Rome  (a.  d.  1059),  he  was  to  take  an  oath,  in  the  name 
of  the  Holy  Trinity,  that  he  believed :  Panem  et  vinum,  quse  in  altari  ponun- 
tur,  post  consecrationem  non  solum  sacramentum,  sed  etiam  verum  corpus  et 
sanguinem  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  esse,  et  sensualiter,  non  sclum  Sacra¬ 
mento,  sed  in  veritate  manibus  sacerdotum  tractari,  frangi  et  Jidelium  denti- 
bus  atteri\  he  retracted,  however,  as  soon  as  he  had  obtained  his  liberty. 
[Comp.  Meander ,  Hist.  Dogm.  460,  sg'.] 

10  The  doctrine  of  Lanfranc,  though  propounded  in  less  rigid  terms 
than  that  of  Humbert,  was,  nevertheless,  opposed  to  the  view  adopted  by 
Berengar,  and  rendered  impossible  any  further  attempt  to  return  to  a  sym-  # 
bolising  and  spiritualising  interpretation.  He  taught  (1.  c.  c.  18,  p.  772, 
quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  244)  :  Credimus  terrenas  sub- 
stantias,  quse  in  mensa  dominica  per  sacerdotale  ministerium  divinitus  sanc- 
tificantur,  ineffabiliter,  incomprehensibiliter,  mirabiliter,  operante  superna 
potentia,  converti  in  essentiam  dominici  corporis,  reservatis  ipsarum  rerum 
speciebus  et  quibusdam  aliis  qualitatibus,  ne  percipientes  cruda  et  cruenta 
horrerent,  et  ut  credentes  fidei  prsemia  ampliora  perciperent :  ipso  tamen 

*  Only  in  so  far  may  it  be  said  that  the  bread  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  is  no  bread ;  as 
Christ  says,  My  doctrine  is  not  mine,  but  his  who  sent  me ;  or  Paul :  I  live,  yet  not  I, 
but  Christ  liveth  in  me.  Comp.  p.  178. 


§  194.  Transubstantiation. 


95 


doininico  corpore  existente  in  ccelestibus  ad  dexteram  Patris,  immortali,  in- 
violato,  integro,  incontaminato,  illseso :  ut  vere  dici  possit,  et  ipsum  corpus 
quod  de  Virgine  suratum  est  nos  sumere,  et  tamen  non  ipsum.  Ipsum 
quidem,  quantum  ad  essentiam  verseque  naturae  proprietatem  atque  naturam  ; 
non  ipsum  autem,  si  spectes  panis  vinique  speciem  caeteraque  superius  com- 
prehensa.  Hanc  fidem  tenuit  a  priscis  temporibus  et  nunc  tenet  ecclesia, 
quae  per  totum  effusa  orbem  catholica  nominatur.  (To  this  last  view  Beren- 
gar  opposed  proofs  drawn  from  the  writings  of  Ambrose  and  Augustine,  in 
the  treatise  above  mentioned.  Comp,  note  8.) 


§  194. 

2,  The  Scholastic  Development  of  the  Doctrine.  Transubstantia¬ 
tion.  The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass. 

A  word  is  often  of  great  consequence  !  Hildebert  of  Tours  was  the 
first  who  made  use  of  the  full-sounding  term  “  transubstantiatio 
though  similar  expressions,  such  as  transition  had  previously  been  em¬ 
ployed.8  Most  of  the  earlier  scholastics,3  and  the  disciples  of  Lan- 
franc  in  particular,  had  defended  the  doctrine  of  the  change  of  the 
bread  into  the  body  of  Chrst,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  accidentia 
sine  subjecto  ;  these  were  now  solemnly  confirmed,  by  being  inserted 
together  with  the  term  transubstantiatio  into  the  Decretum  Gra- 
tiani,4  and  were  made  an  unchangeable  article  of  faith  by  Pope 
Innocent  III.5  Thus  nothing  was  left  to  the  later  scholastics,  but 
to  answer  still  more  subtle  questions,  such  as  :  In  what  respect  can 
it  be  said  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  actually  broken  together  with 
the  bread  ?8  Do  animals  partake  of  the  body  of  Christ,  when  they 
happen  to  swallow  a  consecrated  host  ?7  Is  the  bread  used  in  the 
Lord's  Supper  changed  only  into  the  flesh  of  our  Lord,  or  also  into 
his  blood  ?  (the  doctrine  of  what  is  called  concomitance .)8  Is  the 
bread,  in  the  former  case,  changed  only  into  the  flesh  of  Christ,  or 
also  into  his  body  and  soul,  or  into  his  divinity  itself,  or  even  into 
the  Holy  Trinity  ?9  Does  the  change  take  place  gradually,  or  sud¬ 
denly  ?10  Is  there  only  one  body  in  the  multitude  of  hosts,  so  that 
the  same  Christ  is  sacrified  at  the  same  time  upon  all  altars,  which 
constitutes  the  mystery  of  the  mass  P11 — By  the  institution  of  the 
Corpus-Christi-day  by  Pope  Urban  IY.  (a.  d.  1264),  and  Pope 
Clement  Y.  (a.  d.  1311),  at  the  Synod  of  Yienne,  the  doctrine  in 
question  was  expressed  in  a  liturgical  form,  and  its  popularity 
secured.18  Henceforth  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  formed  more  than 
ever  the  centre  of  the  catholic  ritual,13  and  reflected  new  glory  upon 
the  priesthood.  Nevertheless  many  pious  minds  found  elevation  and 
powerful  motives,  in  the  idea  of  a  special  presence  of  the  Redeemer,  and 
the  daily  repetition  of  his  sacrifice,  as  well  as  in  that  of  the  mystical 


96 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


union  with  him  in  the  act  of  communion.  Thus  here  again  it  be¬ 
came  the  office  of  the  idealising  mystics,  by  the  spirit  of  inward 
contemplation,  to  transform  into  a  heavenly  manna,  what  the 
scholastics  had  brought  down  into  the  sphere  of  the  external  and 
earthly.14 

1  In  Sermo  YI.  Opp.  Col.  689  ;  comp.  Sermo  Y.  in  Ccena  Domini,  Opp. 
Col.  422;  and  De  Sacram.  Altaris,  Opp.  Col.  1106,  quoted  by  Munscher , 
edit,  by  von  Colin,  pp.  249,  250.  [In  his  Sermo  VI.  Opera,  689  :  eum 
profero  verba  Canonis  (sc.  Missae),  et  verbum  Transsubstantiationis.  In  his 

Sermo  Y.  he  defines: — ita  ut  panis  substantia  non  remaneat . et  sub 

ilia  specie  veram  corporis  substantiam  latere :  ne,  si  in  ea  qualitate  in  qua 
revera  est  appareret,  verum  liominis  sumere  abhorreret.] 

3  Thus  by  Hugo  of  St.  Victor ,  see  Liebner ,  p.  455,  ss. 

3  Anselm ,  a  disciple  of  Lanfranc,  followed  the  example  of  his  master  in 
his  Tractatus  bipartitus  de  Corpore  et  Sanguine  Domini,  sive  de  Sacramento 

Altaris.  (Disputatio  dialectica  de  grammatico,  P.  ii.)  P.  i . Sicut 

in  mensa  nuptiali  aqua  in  vinum  mutata  solum  adfuit  vinum,  in  quod 
aqua  mutata  erat :  sic  in  mensa  altaris  solum  corpus  Domini,  in  quod  vere 
mutata  est  vera  panis  substantia;  nisi,  quod  de  aqua  nihil  remansit  in 
mutatione  ilia,  de  pane  vero  mutato,  ad  peragendum  sacri  institutum  mys- 
terii,  sola  remanet  species  visibilis.  (He  expressly  condemns  the  hereti¬ 
cal  doctrine  of  Berengar.)  Yet  we  ought  not  to  think  of  the  transaction 
as  something  magical :  Nihil  enim  falsum  factum  putandum  est  in  sacri- 
ficio  veritatis,  sicut  fit  in  magorum  praestigiis,  ubi  delusione  quadam  falluntur 
oculi,  ut  videatur  illis  esse,  quod  non  est  omnino.  Sed  vera  species  visibilis 
panis,  quae  fuit  in  pane,  ipsa  facta  paeter  substantiam  suam  quodammodo  in 
aliena  peregrinatur,  continente  eum,  qui  fecit  earn  et  ad  suum  transferente 
corpus.  Quae  tamen  translata  ad  corpus  Domini,  non  eo  modo  se  habet  ad 
illud,  quomodo  accidens  ad  substantiam  :  quia  corpus  Domini  in  substantia 
sua,  nec  album  efficit  albedo  ilia,  nec  rotundum  rotunditas,  sicque  de  reliquis. 
— Nor  ought  we  to  rest  satisfied  with  the  mere  carnal  participation.  P.  ii. 
c.  12  :  Et  cum  de  altari  sumimus  carnem  Jesu,  curemus  solicite,  ne  cogi- 
tatione  remaneamus  in  carne,  et  a  spiritu  non  vivificemur ;  quodsi  non 
vivificamur  a  spiritu,  caro  non  prodest  quicquam,  etc.  (comp,  note  12.) 
The  principles  of  Lanfranc  were  also  partially  adopted  by  Durandus ,  Abbas 
Troarnensis  (he  died,  a.  d.  1088),  De  Corp.  et  Sang.  Domini,  c.  Bereng. 
(in  Bibl.  PP.  Max.  T.  xviii.  p.  419;  Galland,  T.  xiv.  p.  245),  and  Guitmundus 
Archiepisc.  Aversanus,  de  Corporis  et  Sanguinis  Christi  Veritate  in  Euchar- 
istia,  libr.  iii.  (in  Bibl.  PP.  Max.,  T.  xviii.  p.  441).  Eusebius  Bruno  (bishop 
of  Anjou),  whom  Durandus  numbered  among  the  followers  of  Berengar, 
wished  to  have  a  stop  put  to  all  discussions  concerning  this  sacrament  (see 
Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  pp.  247,  248.) — But  in  vain  !  The  theory  of 
Paschasius  and  Lanfranc  gained  the  victory. — Hugo  of  St.  Victor  himself 
called  the  few  advocates  of  Berengar’s  doctrine  “  perverters  of  Scripture,” 
and  distinctly  opposed  a  mere  symbolical  interpretation,  though  he  would 
have  retained  it  together  with  the  real  (see  Liebner ,  p.  453,  ss.) — Peter  Lorn- 
lard  appealed,  Sent.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  10.  D.  to  (Pseudo-)  Ambrose,  De  initiand. 


§  194.  Transubstantiation. 


97 


mysteriis  (Yol.  i.  §  138,  note  3)  :  Ex  liis  (continues  he)  aliisque  pluribus 
constat,  verum  corpus  Christi  et  sanguinem  in  altari  esse,  immo  integrum 
Christum  ibi  sub  utraque  specie  et  substantiam  panis  in  corpus,  vinique  sub- 
stantiam  in  sanguinem  convert! — But  he  confesses  his  inability  to  explain 
the  mode  of  that  change,  Dist.  xi.  A. :  Si  autem  quaeritur,  qualis  sit  ilia  con- 
versio,  an  formalis,  an  substantialis,  vel  alterius  generis,  definire  non  sufficio. 
Formalem  tamen  non  esse  cognosco,  quia  species  rerum,  quae  ante  fuerant, 
remanent,  et  sapor  et  pondus.  .  Quibusdam  esse  videtur  substantialis,  dicen- 
tibus  sic  substantiam  tmnverti  in  substantiam,  ut  haec  essentialiter  fiat  ilia,  si 
sensui  praemissae  auctoritates  consentire  videntur. — B. :  Sed  huic  sententiae 
sic  opponitur  ab  aliis :  Si  substantia  panis,  inquiunt,  vel  vini  convertitur  sub- 
stantialiter  in  corpus  vel  sanguinem  Christi,  quotidie  fit  aliqua  substantia 
corpus  vel  sanguis  Christi,  quae  ante  non  erat  corpus,  et  hodie  est  aliquid 
corpus  Christi,  quod  heri  non  erat,  et  quotidie  augetur  corpus  Christi  atque 
formatur  de  materia,  de  qua  in  conceptione  non  fuit  factum.  Quibus  hoc 
modo  responderi  potest,  quia  non  ea  ratione  dicitur  corpus  Christi  confici 
verbo  coelesti,  quod  ipsum  corpus  in  conceptu  virginis  formatum  deinceps 
formetur  :  sed  quia  substantia  panis  vel  vini,  quae  ante  non  fuerunt  corpus 
Christi  vel  sanguis,  verbo  coelesti  fit  corpus  et  sanguis.  Et  ideo  sacerdotes 
dicuntur  conficere  corpus  Christi  et  sanguinem ,  quia  eorum  ministerio  sub¬ 
stantia  panis  fit  caro,  et  substantia  vini  fit  sanguis  Christi,  nec  tamen  aliquid 
additur  corpori  vel  sanguini,  nec  augetur  corpus  Christi  vel  sanguis. — C. :  Si 
vero  quaeris  modum,  quo  id  fieri  possit,  breviter  respondeo  :  Mysterium  fidei 
credi  salubriter  potest,  investigari  salubriter  non  potest.  Comp.  Dist.  xii.  k : 
Si  autem  quaeritur  de  accidentibus,  quae  remanent,  i.  e.  de  speciebus  et  sapore 
et  pondere,  in  quo  subjecto  fundentur,  potius  mihi  videtur  fatendum  existere 
sine  subjecto  quam  esse  in  subjecto,  quia  ibi  non  est  substantia,  nisi  corporis 
et  sanguinis  dominici,  quae  non  afficitur  illis  accidentibus.  Non  enim  corpus 
Christi  talem  habit  in  se  formam,  sed  qualis  in  judicio  apparebit.  Remanent 
ergo  ilia  accidentia  per  se  subsistentia  ad  mysterii  ritum,  ad  gustus  fideique 
suftragium  :  quibus  corpus  Christi,  habens  formam  et  naturam  suam,  tegitur. 

[4  The  Decretum  Gratiani  was  a  “  Concordia  discordantium  Canonum  in 
Lib.  iii.”  composed  about  the  year  1150,  by  Gratianus ,  a  Benedictine 
monk;  it  was  also  called  Codex  decretorum,  Decreta  Gratiani,  and  more 
frequently  Decretum  Grat.  See  Gieseler ,  1.  c.  ii.,  §  60,  note  5.  ilaliam’s 
Middle  Ages,  ii.  p.  2,  8th  edit.  Thomas  Greenwood ,  Cathedra  Petri,  vol.  iii. 
Lond.,  1859.  Book  vi.,  chap,  viii.] 

6  Cone.  Lat.  IV.  c.  i.  (quoted  by  Munsclier ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  251) : 
Una  est  fidelium  universalis  ecclesia,  extra  quam  nullus  omnino  salvatur.  In 
qua  idem  ipse  sacerdos  est  sacrificium  Jesus  Christus,  cujus  corpus  et  sanguis 
in  sacramento  altaris  sub  speciebus  panis  et  vini  veraciter  conti nentur, 
transubstantiatis  pane  in  corpus  et  vino  in  sanguinem  potestate  divina,  ut  ad 
perficiendum  mysterium  unitatis  accipiamus  ipsi  de  suo,  quod  accepit  ipse  de 
nostro.  Et  hoc  utique  sacramentum  nemo  potest  conficere  nisi  sacerdos,  qui 
rite  fuerit  ordinatus,  secundum  claves  ecclesiae,  quas.ipse  concessit  Apostolis 
eorumque  successoribus  Jesus  Christus.  Pope  Innocent  III.  himself  main 
tained,  de  Mysteriis  Missae.  1.  iv.  c.  7  :  Non  solum  accidentales,  sed  etiaL 


98 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


naturales  proprietates  remanere :  paneitatem ,  quse  satiando  famem  expellit  et 
vineitatem ,  quse  satiando  sitim  expellit. 

6  Thomas  Aquinas  (Summ.  P.  iii.  Qu.  75,  Art.  6,  and  7,  Qu.  76,  Art.  3) 
made  the  assertion,  that  the  body  is  broken  only  secundum  speciem  sacra- 
mentalem,  but  is  itself  incorruptibile  et  impassibile  :  see  the  passages  quoted 
by  Munscher,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  pp.  253,  254.  [Aquinas  argues,  in  Art.  6, 
against  those  who  maintained,  that  the  forma  substantialis  of  the  bread  re¬ 
mained  ;  for,  1.  if  the  substantial  form  remains,  the  mere  matter  alone  is 
changed,  and  not  the  form,  whereas  the  words  of  institution  say,  This  is  my 
body.  2.  Because  this  substantial  form  remained,  it  must  be  either  in,  or 
separate  from  the  matter ;  both  of  which  are  in  the  case  impossible,  etc. 
Qu.  77,  Art.  1  :  Relinquitur  quod  accidentia  in  hoc  sacramento  maneat  sine 
subjecto,  quod  quidem  virtute  divina  fieri  potest.  Eaur,  p.  267  :  Aquinas 
says,  transubstantiation  is  neither  an  annihilation  nor  a  continuance  of  the 
substance  ;  if  the  accidents  abide  without  the  substance,  this  is  like  the  case 
of  all  miracles,  a  working  of  the  first  cause  without  the  second  causes.  The 
whole  Christ  was  conceived  as  being  in  each  part  of  the  species  ;  and  to  ex¬ 
plain  how  this  could  be,  how  a  body  of  greater  quantity  could  be  in  a  smaller, 
not  dimensive,  but  as  a  substantial  quantity,  the  scholastics  made  distinction, 
which  at  last  run  out  into  this — that  existence  in  space  does  not  belong  to  the 
essence  of  things  that  appear  in  space.  Aquinas,  Dist.  76,  Art.  4.]  Christ 
is  whole  and  undivided  in  every  particle  of  the  host.  In  the  same  way  the 
consecrated  wine,  though  other  liquids  may  be  added,  remains  the  blood  of 
Christ  as  long  as  it  does  not  cease  to  be  wine.  Fortunately  these  subtile  de¬ 
finitions  required  only  a  fides  implicita,  but  not  explicita ;  see  Cramer,  vii. 
pp.  728,  729.  The  theory  of  Thomas  is  more  fully  developed  by  Engel - 
hardt,  Dogmengeschichte,  ii.  p.  214,  ss.,  note;  Ebrard ,  i.  487.  [Hampden’s 
Bampton  Lectures,  Lect.  vii.] 

7  Peter  Lombard,  started  this  question,  Sent.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  13,  A.,  and 
decided  :  Illud  sane  dici  potest,  quod  a  brutis  animalibus  corpus  Christi  non 
sumitur,  etsi  videatur.  Quid  ergo  sumit  mus  vel  quid  manducat !  Deus 
novit  hoc. — Alexander  Hales,  however,  who  lived  about  a  century  later,  pre¬ 
tended  to  a  better  knowledge  respecting  this  point  (Summa  P.  iv.  Qu.  45, 
Mcmbr.  1,  Art.  1  and  2).  He  took  the  affirmative  side  of  the  question,  in 
support  of  which  he  asserted,  that,  if  a  sinner  could  receive  the  body  of 
Christ,  the  same  might  be  supposed,  with  much  more  propriety,  in  the  case 
of  an  innocent  animal :  on  the  other  hand,  he  professed  to  be  aware  that 
God  abhors  only  the  sin  of  the  sinner,  but  not  his  human  nature,  which 
alone  is  susceptible  of  the  beneficial  effects  of  the  sacrament.  Nevertheless 
he  was  compelled  to  admit,  that  if  a  dog  or  a  pig  swallowed  the  unbroken 
host,  the  body  of  our  Lord  entered  into  the  belly  of  the  animal. — Thomas 
Aquinas  held  similar  views,  P.  iii.  Qu.  80,  Art.  3  :  Etiamsi  mus  vel  canis 
hostiam  consecratam  manducet,  substantia  corporis  Christi  non  desinit  esse 
sub  speciebus,  quamdiu  species  illse  manent,  hoc  est  quamdiu  substantia 
panis  maneret ;  sicut  etiam  si  projiceretur  in  lutum. — On  the  other  hand, 
Bonaventura  expressed  himself  with  more  propriety  (after  he  had  stated  all 
that  might  be  said  for  and  against  the  doctrine)  in  Comment,  ad.  Sent.  iv. 
Dist.  13,  Art.  2,  Qu.  1;  Quantumcunque  haec  opinio  muniatur,  nunquam 


§  194.  Transubstantiation. 


99 


tamen  ita  munitur,  quamquam  aures  pice  hoc  abhorreant  audire ,  quod  in 
ventre  muris  vel  in  cloaca  sit  corpus  Christi,  quamdiu  species  ibi  subsistunt. 
Propter  haec  est  alia  opinio,  quod  corpus  Christi  nullo  modo  descendit  in 

ventrem  muris . Et  haec  opinio  communior  est,  et  certe  lionestior  et 

rational)]' lior.  Nevertheless  this  more  appropriate  and  rational  view  was  de¬ 
termined  by  the  Synod  of  Paris,  a.  d.  1300,  to  be  one  of  those  articles,  in 
quibus  Magister  Sententiarum  non  tenetur  ( Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p. 
255). — Thomas  Aquinas,  however,  held,  that  an  animal  can  partake  of  the 
body  of  Christ  only  accidentaliter,  but  not  sacramentaliter :  and  Pope  Inno¬ 
cent  III.  endeavored  (De  Myst.  Missae  iv.  21,)  to  get  rid  of  all  difficulties  by 
supposing  that  the  body  of  our  Lord  left  the  host  in  the  same  miraculous 
way  in  which  it  had  entered  it  (reconversio.)  Compare  Wilhelm  Holder1 8 
satire  :  Mus  exenteratus,  etc.,  published  in  the  sixteenth  century,  in  Meiners 
and  Splitters  Neues  Gotting.  historisches  Magazin.  Vol.  ii.  p.  716-734,  where 
some  other  curiosities  are  collected. 

8  See  the  next  section. 

9  The  elements  are,  properly  speaking,  changed  only  into  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  but  his  soul  is  united  to  his  body,  and  his  divine  nature  to 
his  soul ;  see  Thomas  Aquinas ,  P.  iii.  Qu.  76,  Art.  1.  On  the  controversy 
which  took  place  in  the  kingdom  of  Valencia,  a.  d.  1382  (respecting  the 
transubstantiation  of  the  bread  into  the  whole  Trinity),  see  Haluze ,  Notae 
ad  Vitas  Paparum  Avenionensis,  T.  i.  p.  1368,  ss.  (from  an  ancient  MS.) ; 
and  Schrockh ,  xxxiii.  p.  325. 

10  The  transubstantiation  takes  place  in  instanti,  not  successive.  Comp. 
Alex.  Hales ,  P.  iv.  Qu.  10,  Memb.  5,  Art.  4.  Thom.  Aquinas ,  P.  iii.  Qu. 
75,  Art.  7.  Albertus  Magnus ,  Sentent.  iv.  Dist.  10,  Art.  3.  (Klee,  Dogmen- 
geschichte,  ii.  p.  204.) 

11  Thus  Anselm  said,  1.  c.  P.  ii.  c.  4  :  Sic  ergo  constat,  in  diversis  locis 
uno  hone  momento  esse  posse  corpus  Christi,  sed  lege  creatricis  naturae,  non 
creatae.  The  other  scholastics  adopted  the  same  opinion.  Similar  views  were 
also  entertained  by  the  mystics.  Compare  Ruysbroek,  Specul.  aeternae  Salutis 
c.  8,  and  Engelhardt1  s  monograph,  p.  261  :  “All  the  bread  which  our  Lord 
himself  consecrated  for  his  body  (at  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s  Supper),*  as 
well  as  the  bread  which  the  priests  now  everywhere  consecrate,  is,  according 
to  its  true  nature,  only  one  bread  (only  one  bread  in  its  nature.)  In  the 
act  of  consecration  all  the  hosts,  by  means  of  the  secret  intention  of  the 
priest,  and  the  enunciation  of  the  words  of  consecration,  are  united  into  one 
matter,  and  one  substance,  and  what  was  formerly  bread,  now  becomes  en¬ 
tirely  the  body  of  Christ. . .  .Every  bit  of  bread,  every  drop  of  wine,  con¬ 
tains  the  whole  Christ,  who  is  in  heaven,  but  not  confined  to  any  particular 
place,  as  the  one  undivided  soul  is  equally  diffused  throughout  the  body. . . . 
The  body  of  Christ  is  present  in  all  countries,  places,  and  churches ;  hence 
we  may  preserve  it  in  various  ways,  and  keep  it  in  various  places ;  we  may 

*  It  was  thought  that  Christ  himself  partook,  by  way  of  accommodation,  of  his  own 
body,  at  the  institution  of  the  sacrament  in  question;  see  Thomas  Aquinas.  1.  c.  Qu.  81, 
Scrhockh ,  xxxix.  p.  163.  On  a  chalice  at  Hildesheim  is  inscribed :  Rex  sedet  in  ccena, 
turba  cinctus  duodena,  se  tenet  in  manibus,  se  cibat  ipse  cibus.  Comp.  Eiemer ,  Mittheh 
lungen  uber  Grothe,  ii.  7  04. 


100 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


have  it,  receive  it,  and  give  it  in  the  casket.  But  as  he  exists  in  heaven  having 
his  hands,  his  feet,  and  all  his  members,  and  is  seen  by  the  angels  and  the 
redeemed  in  all  his  glory,  he  does  not  change  his  abode,  and  is  ever  present.” 
— In  illustration  of  such  things,  the  instance  was  adduced  of  a  mirror  com¬ 
posed  of  many  pieces  in  which  a  single  image  is  variously  reflected ;  see 
Klee,  ii.  p.  211.* 

12  Respecting  the  institution  of  this  festival  (whether  in  consequence 
of  a  revelation  to  Juliana  of  Liege?),  see  Gieseler ,  ii.  §77,  notes  15  and  16. 

13  The  idea  of  a  sacrifice  is  intimately  connected  with  that  of  transubstan- 
tiation.  Peter  Lombard,  Sent.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  12,  g. :  Breviter  dici  potest, 
illud  quod  offertur  et  consecratur  a  sacerdote  vocari  sacrificium  et  oblationem, 
quia  memoria  est  et  reprassentatio  veri  sacrificii  et  sanctse  immolationis  factae 
in  ara  crucis.  Et  semel  Christus  mortuus  in  cruce  est  ibique  immolatus  est 
in  semetipso  (Heb.  vii.  27),  quotidie  autem  immolatur  in  sacramento,  quia 
in  sacramento  recordatio  fit  illius  quod  factum  est  semel.  Thomas  Aquinas 
entered  into  more  lengthened  discussions,  Summ.  P.  iii.  Qu.  83,  Art.  1,  ss. 
quoted  by  Munscher,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  pp.  270,  271.  [Aquinas,  after 
giving  the  aspects  under  which  it  can  not  be  called  an  immolatio,  says : 
duplici  ratione  celebratio  hujus  sacramenti  dicitur  immolatio  Christi.  Primo 
quidem  quia ....  imago  qucedam  est  reprcesentativa  passionis  Christi,  quae 
est  vera  ejus  immolatio. . . .  Alio  modo  quantum  ad  effectum  passionis  Christi, 
quia  scilicet  per  hoc  sacramentum  participes  efficimur  fructus  Dominicae 
passionis.]  The  mystical  theory  was,  that  Christ  is  both  priest  and  sacrifice 
at  the  same  time  ;  see  Cone.  Lateran.  IV.  can.  1,  note  4.  Concerning  the 
usual  canon  of  the  mass,  the  various  kinds  of  mass  (missae  solitarae)  etc., 
comp,  the  archeological  and  liturgical  works  of  Calixt  (Dissert,  de  Pon- 
tificio  Missae  Sacrificio  Francof.  1644,  and  de  Missis  Solitariis.  Helmst. 
1647-8)  ;  JSuddeus  (Dissert,  de  Origine  Missae  Pontificiae,  in  Miscell.  Sacra, 
Jen.,  1727,  T.  i.  p.  1-63) ;  and  Augusti  (Archaeologie,  vol.  iv.  and  viii). — On 
the  adoration  of  the  host  during  the  mass,  as  well  as  at  other  times  (e.  g. 
when  it  was  carried  to  the  sick,  etc.),  which  may  be  dated  from  the  thirteenth 
century,  see  Ccesarius  of  Heisterhach,  De  Miraculis  et  Visionibus  sui  Tem- 
poris  Dialog,  lib.  ix.  c.  51,  quoted  by  Gieseler,  ii.  p.  485,  §  77,  note  14;  and 
C.  de  Lith.,  de  Adoratione  Panis  consecrati  et  Interdictione  sacri  Calicis  in 
Eucharistia.  1753-8.  Decret.  Gregorii  IX.  Lib.  iii.  Tit.  41,  c.  10,  (quoted 
by  Munscher,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  262) :  Sacerdos  vero  quilibet  frequenter 
doceat  plebem  suam,  ut,  cum  in  celebratione  missarum  elevatur  hostia  salu- 
taris,  quilibet  se  reverenter  inclinet,  idem  faciens  cum  earn  defert  presbyter 
ad  infirm um. 

14  This  is  the  more  cheering  aspect  of  the  history  of  the  doctrine  in  ques¬ 
tion,  which  has  too  often  been  overlooked  in  works  on  the  history  of  doctrines. 
Thus  Anselm  said,  De  Sacram.  Altaris  P.  ii.  c.  8  (p.  75)  :  Cum  ergo  de  carne 

*  Since  every  host  contains  the  body  of  Christ,  and  one  priest  may  lift  up  one  host  at 
the  same  time  when  another  priest  lowers  down  another,  it  follows,  according  to  W. 
Occam,  that  a  body  may  move  at  one  and  the  same  time  in  two  different  directions : 
Aristotle  indeed  makes  the  opposite  assertion,  yet  this  is  because  he  looked  at  the  matter 
merely  from  the  natural  point  of  view:  see  Centiloq.  conclus.  27.  Rettberg  in  the  Studien 
und  Kritiken,  1839,  part  1,  p.  76. 


§  194.  Transubstantiation. 


101 


sua  amandi  se  tantam  ingerit  materiam,  magnum  et  mirificam  animabus 
nostris  vitae  alimoniam  ministrat,  quam  tunc  avidis  faucibus  sumimus,  cum 
dulciter  recolligimus  et  in  ventre  memoriae  recondimus,  quaecunque  pro  nobis 
fecit  et  passus  est  Christus.  Hoc  est  convivium  de  carne  Jesu  et  sanguine, 
qui  cum  communicat,  habet  vitam  in  se  manentem.  Tunc  enim  communi- 
camus,  cum  fide  ardente,  quae  per  dilectionem  operatur,  reposuimus  in  mensa 
Domini,  qualia  ipsi  sumsimus,  videlicet,  ut,  sicut  ille  totum  se  praebuit  pro 
salute  nostra  nulla  sua  necessitate,  sic  nos  totos  fidei  ejus  et  cbaritati  exhi- 
beamus  necessitate  salutis  nostrae.  In  hoc  convivio  quicunque  saginatur, 
nescit  panem  suum  otiosus  comedere,  sed  solicite  cum  muliere  ejus  ardet  de 
nocte  hujus  seculi  consurgere  ad  lucernam  verbi  Dei,  ut  labores  manuum 
suarum  manducet,  et  bene  sit  ei.  Sique  in  Christo  manet  bonus  conviva 
Christi  propriae  dilectionis  aflectu,  habetque  Christum  in  se  manentum  per 
sanctae  operationis  effectum.  Quod  cum  utrumque  donum  Dei  sit,  totum 
accrescit  magis  ac  magis  ad  cumulum  amoris  in  ilium,  quem  perfecte  amare 
est  perfecte  bonum  esse.  Hunc  autem  cibum  plus  manducat,  qui  amplius 
amat,  et  plus  amando  rursus  qui  plus  et  plus  manducat,  et  plus  et  plus  amat. 
Licet  hujus  amoris  in  hac  vita  non  nisi  pignus  quoddam  accipiamus,  plenitu- 
dinem  ejus,  in  praemium,  in  futuro  seculo  expectantes.  Et  ecce  hoc  est  man- 
ducare  illam  carnem,  de  qua  dicit  Jesus  [John,  vi.] :  Qui  manducat  carnem 
meam,  in  me  manet  et  ego  in  eo.— Similar  language  was  used  by  Hugo  of 
St.  Victor ,  who  here  again,  “  combined  the  dialectic  prudence  of  the  scholas¬ 
tics  with  the  warmth  and  depth  of  the  mystics .”  He  expressed  himself  as 
follows  (Lib.  i.  P.  viii.  c.  5) : — “  He  who  eats  without  being  united  to  Christ, 
has  the  sacrament  indeed,  but  he  has  not  the  essence  of  the  sacrament.  On 
the  contrary,  he  who  eats  and  is  united  to  our  Lord,  has  the  essence  of  the 
sacrament,  because  he  has  faith  and  love.  Even  suppose  he  could  neither 
take  nor  eat,  yet  he  would  be  far  more  esteemed  by  our  Lord  than  he  who 
takes  and  eats,  but  neither  believes  nor  loves,  or  he  who  believes,  *but  does 
not  love.”  ( Liebner ,  p.  435.)  Comp.  Bonaventura ,  Sent.  iv.  Dist.  x.  P.  1, 
Qu.  1,  Art.  1,  quoted  by  Klee,  Dogmengesch.  ii.  p.  190.  [B.  says:  “As 

many  we  need  union,  as  pilgrims  we  need  food,  as  sinners,  a  daily  sacrifice  : 
that  which  unites,  feeds  and  purifies,  can  only  be  God,  or  what  is  joined  to 
God,  that  is,  the  body  of  Christ.”  He  further  shows  how  faith,  hope,  and 
love,  and  humility  were  nourished  by  this  sacrament.]  Comp.  Breviloq.  vi. 
9,  Centiloq.  iii.  50. — Tauler,  4  Predigten  auf  unsers  Herrn  Frohnleichnams- 
tag  (vol.  ii.  p.  1 V8,  ss.) ;  2  Predigten  von  dem  heiligen  Sacrament  (ibid.  p. 
294,  ss.,  comp.  p.  333,  ss.)  Buysbroek ,  1.  c. —  Gerson ,  Sermo  de  Eucharistia 
in  Festo  Corporis  Domini ;  Opp.  P.  i.  p.  1284-92.  His  illustrations  are  all 
pervaded  by  the  spirit  of  mysticism;  thus  he  says,  p.  1219  :  Est  panis  an- 
gelorum,  qui  factus  fuit  et  formatus  in  pretioso  ventre  Virginis  gloriosae  et 
decoctus  in  fornace  ardente  dilectionis,  in  arbore  crucis,  qui  manducari  debet 
cum  baculo  spei,  cum  boni  exempli  califactorio,  cum  acetosis  lachrymis  bonse 
patientiae,  velociter  recordando  finem  nostrum,  in  una  domo  per  unitatem 
integre,  per  veram  credulitatem,  tostus  per  ignem  charitatis,  etc. — Stiso  calls 
the  Lord’s  Supper  the  sacrament  of  love,  and  celebrated  in  it  the  mystic 
union  of  the  soul  with  God  ;  see  his  Ewige  Weisheit,  fob  (in  Schmidt,  loc. 
cit.  51  ;  Diepenbroek,  350). — In  like  manner  Thomas  a  Kempis,  De  Imit. 


102 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


Christi  Lib.  iv.  4 :  Ecce,  unde  dilectio  procedit,  qualis  dignatio  illucescit ! 
quam  magnae  gratiarura  actiones  et  laudes  tibi  pro  his  debentur !  0  quam 

salutare  et  utile  consilium  tuum,  cum  istud  instituisti  !  quam  suave  et  jucun- 
dum  convivium,  cum  te  ipsum  in  cibum  donasti !  O  quam  admirabilis 
operatio  tua,  Domine  !  quam  potens  virtus  tua,  quam  inefi’abilis  veritas  tua ! 
Dixisti  enim,  et  facta  sunt  omnia,  et  hoc  factum  est,  quod  ipse  jussisti. 
5 :  Mira  res  et  fide  digna,  ac  humanum  vincens  intellectum,  quod  tu,  Domine 
Dens  meus,  verus  Deus  et  homo,  sub  modica  specie  panis  et  vini  integer  con- 
tineris,  et  sine  consumtione  a  sumente  manducaris.  Tu  Domine  universorum, 
qui  nullius  babes  indigentiam,  voluisti  per  Sacramentum  tuum  habitare  in 
nobis  :  conserva  cor  meum  et  corpus  immaculatum,  ut  lseta  et  pura  con- 
scientia  ssepius  tua  valeam  celebrare  mysteria,  et  ad  meam  perpetuam  acci- 
pere  salutem,  quae  ad  tuum  prsecique  honorem  et  memoriale  perenne  sanxisti 
et  instituisti. — 6:  Laetare,  anima  mea,  et  gratias  age  Deo  pro  tarn  nobili 
munere  et  solatio  singulari  in  hac  lacrymarum  valle  tibi  relicto.  Nam 
quoties  hoc  mysterium  recolis  et  Christi  corpus  accipis,  toties  tuae  redem- 
tionis  opus  agis,  et  particeps  omnium  meritorum  Christi  efficeris.  Charitas 
enim  Christi  nunquam  minuitur  et  magnitudo  propitiationis  ejus  nunquam 
exhauritur.  Ideo  nova  semper  mentis  renovatione  ad  hoc  disponere  te 
debes,  et  magnum  salutis  mysterium  attenta  consideratione  pensare.  Ita 
magnum,  novum  et  jucundum  tibi  videri  debet,  cum  celebras  aut  Missam 
audis,  ac  si  eodem  die  Christus  primum  in  uterum  Yirginis  descendens  homo 
factus  esset,  aut  si  in  cruce  pendens  pro  salute  hominum  pateretur  et 
moretur. —  Wessel  entertained  similar  views  (though  he  somewhat  differed 
from  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine,  see  §  196,  note  7),  comp.  De  Orat.  viii.  6,  p. 
148  ;  de  Sacrament.  Eucharist.  C.  26,  p.  699,  quoted  by  Ullmann ,  p.  329: 
“  The  bread  set  before  believers,  is  the  purest  and  most  perfect  mirror  of 
love,  lifted  up  on  the  hills,  that  all  may  see  it,  and  none  hide  himself  from 
its  warming  beams,”  etc. 


§  195. 

THE  WITHHOLDING  OP  THE  CUP  PROM  THE  LAITY.  CONCOMITANCE. 

*Spittler,  Gescliichte  des  Ketches  im  Abendmahl.  Lemgo,  1780. 

In  the  Western  Church  the  custom  was  gradually  adopted  of 
administering  to  the  laity  only  the  consecrated  host,  while  the 
priests  alone  partook  of  the  cup.1  In  defence  of  such  a  practice, 
theologians  advanced  the  doctrine  of  concomitance ,  developed  about 
the  same  time,  according  to  which  Christ  exists  wholly  in  each  of 
the  elements,  so  that  those  who  receive  the  consecrated  host,  par¬ 
take  of  his  blood  no  less  than  of  his  body.3  Robert  Pulleyn  is  said 
to  have  been  the  first  who  claimed  the  participation  of  the  cup  as 
the  prerogative  of  the  clergy.8  Alexander  Hales ,  Bonaventura,  and 
Thomas  Aquinas ,  followed  him.  But  Albertus  Magnus ,  while 
conceding  that  the  blood  of  Christ  was  also  present  in  the  body, 


§  195.  Concomitance. 


103 


said  that  this  was — ex  unione  naturali,  and  not,  ex  virtute  saera- 
mentali.6  In  the  fifteenth  century  the  cup  was  again  violently  re¬ 
claimed  in  Bohemia.  It  was  not  at  first,  Hus,  but  his  colleague, 
Jacobellus  of  Misa ,  who  demanded,  in  the  absence  of  the  former, 
that  the  laity  should  be  readmitted  to  the  participation  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  sub  utraque  forma.  Hus  afterwards  approved  of 
what  he  had  done.8  It  is  well  known  that  this  demand,  which  was 
in  opposition  to  the  Synod  of  Constance,7  gave  rise  to  the  wars  of 
the  Husites.  The  consequence  was,  that  the  council  of  Basle  con¬ 
firmed  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  according  to  which  it  is  sufficient 
to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  sub  una  forma  ;  but  it  permitted 
exceptions  when  the  Church  deemed  it  desirable;8 

1  Had  this  custom  its  origin  in  the  apprehension  that  some  portion  of  the 
wine  might  be  spilt  ?  Concerning  the  clipping  of  the  bread — the  introduction 
of  the  Fistulae  (cannae  eucharisticae),  etc.,  see  Spittler ,  1.  c.  and  the  works  on 
ecclesiastical  history  and  archaeology  :  Augusti ,  Archaeologie  viii.  p.  392,  ss., 
comp.  p.  485.  (Comp.  §  194,  note  12.) 

2  Peter  Lombard  taught,  Sent.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  10,  D  (in  calce) :  Integrum 
Christum  esse  in  altari  sub  utraque  specie,  et  substantiam  panis  in  corpus, 
vinique  substantiam  in  sanguinem  converti.  Thomas  Aquinas  was  the  first 
who  made  use  of  the  term  concomitantia  in  Summa,  P.  iii.  Qu.  Yb.  Art.  1  : 
Sciendum,  quod  aliquid  Christi  est  in  hoc  Sacramento  dupliciter:  uno  modo 
quasi  ex  vi  sacramenti,  alio  modo  ex  naturali  concomitantia.  Ex  vi  quidem 
sacramenti  est  sub  speciebus  hujus  sacramenti  id,  in  quod  directe  convertitur 
substantia  panis  et  vini  praeexistens,  prout  significatur  per  verba  form*©,  quae 

sunt  effectiva  in  hoc  Sacramento . Ex  naturali  autem  concomitantia  est 

in  hoc  sacramento  illud,  quod  realiter  est  conjunctum  ei,  in  quod  praedicta 
conversio  terminatur.  Si  enim  aliqua  duo  sunt  realiter  conjuncta,  ubiounque 
est  unum  realiter,  oportet  et  aliud  esse.  Sol  enim  operatione  animse  discer- 
nuntur,  quae  realiter  sunt  conjuncta.  (He  made  use  of  the  same  concomi¬ 
tance  to  explain  the  union  of  the  soul  and  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  with 
his  body.  Compare  above  §  194,  note  9.)  [On  Folmar ,  of  Traufenstein, 
in  Franconia,  who  opposed  the  Concomitance,  see  Neander ,  Hist.  Dogm.  535.] 

3  Sent.  P.  viii.  c.  3  (he  spoke  of  the  danger  alluded  to  above).  The  com¬ 
mand  of  Christ :  “ Drink  ye  all  of  it”  was  applied  to  the  priests,  as  the 
successors  of  the  apostles.  See  Cramer ,  vi.  pp.  515,  516. 

4  Alexander  Hales ,  Summa,  P.  iv.  Qu.  53,  Membr.  1,  quoted  by  Munscher , 
edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  263.  [ Alexander  here  says,  the  church  gives  the 
sacrament — sub  specie  panis  tantum,  turn  propter  periculum  effusionis ,  quod 
forte  accideret  si  sub  specie  vini  dispensaretur  ;  turn  propter  vitii  infidelitatis, 
amotionem,  quod  se  non  immerito  simplicium  mentibus  ingereret,  si  semper 
sub  speciebus  panis  et  vini  daretur ;  quia  si  ita  fieret,  possent  simpliciores 
credere,  quod  Christus  non  contineretur  integre  sub  altera  specie,  sicut,  con- 
tingit  quandoque.  JBonaventura  assigns  the  same  reasons.]  Bonaveutura 
in  Sent.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  11,  p.  2,  Art.  1,  Qu,  2  (ibidem.)  Thomas  Aquinas,  seQ 
above,  note  2. 

6  Gieseler ,  Dogmengesch.  544. 


104 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


6  JEneaz  Sylvii  Historia  Bohemica  c.  35.  Hermann  von  der  Hardly  Acta 
Cone.  Constant.  T.  iii.  p.  338,  ss.  Gieseler,  Church  History,  ii.  p.  32,  §  151. 
The  approbation  of  IIus  was  given  later.  Comp.  De  Sanguine  Christi  sub 
Specie  vini  a  Laicis  sumendo,  qusestio  M.  Joannis  Hus,  quam  Constantise 
conscripsit  priusquam  in  carcerem  conjiceretur,  in  Joannis  Hus  Historia  et 
Monument.  Norimb.  1558,  T.  i.  fol.  xlii.  ss.,  loc.  cit.  iii.  431,  sq. 

7  Sess.  xiii.  (a.  d.  1415,  June  15th)  see  in  Herm .  von  der  Hardt ,  Tom.  iii. 
Col.  646,  ss.,  quoted  by  Gieseler,  1.  c.  p.  382,  note  6,  and  Munscher,  edit,  by 
von  Colin,  p.  266  :  Firmissime  credendum  et  nullatenus  dubitandum,  integrum 
corpus  Christi  et  sanguinem  tarn  sub  specie  panis  quam  sub  specie  vini  vera- 
citer  contineri. 

8  Mansi  T.  xxx.  Col.  695 :  Sancta  vero  mater  ecclesia,  suadentibus  causis 
rationabilibus,  facultatem  communicandi  populum  sub  utraque  specie  potest 
concedere  et  elargiri. — Nevertheless  the  council  adhered  to  the  earlier  canon  : 
Nullatenus  ambigendum  est,  quod  non  sub  specie  panis  caro  tantum,  nec  sub 
specie  vini  sanguis  tantum,  sed  sub  qualibet  specie  est  integer  totus  Christus, 
etc.;  compare  also  Sess.  xxx.  (a.  d.  1437,  Dec.  23d)  in  Mansi  xxix.  Col.  158. 
Gieseler,  1.  c.  p.  441.  Munscher,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  pp.  267,  268. 


§  196. 

DISSENTING  OPINIONS. 

After  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  had  been  thus  established, 
it  was  only  now  and  then  that  a  few  individuals  ventured  to  dissent 
from  it,  or,  at  least,  to  modify  the  commonly  received  notion.  Thus 
in  the  twelfth  century,  Rupert  of  Duytz  (Rupertus  Tuitiensis), 
judging  from  some  passages  in  his  works,  supposed  that  the  body 
of  Christ  is  united  in  a  wondrous  way  with  the  bread,  without  any 
disturbance  of  the  sensible  elements.1  John  of  Paris  (Johannes 
Pungens-asinum)  narrowed  the  notion  of  Rupert  into  the  scholastic 
idea  of  impanation ,  according  to  which  the  corporeitas  panis  (pane- 
itas)  forms  a  union  with  the  corporeitas  Christi — an  idea  which 
would  readily  work  upon  the  fancy  in  a  more  repulsive  way  than 
the  more  daring  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.*  William  Occam 
also  inferred  the  co-existence  of  Christ's  body  with  the  accidents, 
from  the  nominalistic  theory  about  the  quantity  of  things,  and  thus 
partly  prepared  the  way  for  the  later  Lutheran  view.3  Similar 
opinions  were  taught  by  Durandus  de  Sancto  Porciano*  On  the 
other  hand,  Wycliffe  combated  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation, 
as  well  as  that  of  impanation,  with  acute  polemics.5  His  views 
were  probably  adopted  by  Jerome  of  Prague ,  while  Hus  expressed 
himself  in  accord  with  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Church.8 
John  Wessel  attached  particular  importance  to  spiritual  participa¬ 
tion  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  asserted  that  none  but  believers  can 


§  196.  Dissenting  Ohnions. 


105 


partake  of  the  body  of  Christ.  Though  he  retained  the  idea  of  a 
sacrifice,  allied  to  the  Catholic  view,  he  applied  it  mystically  to  the 
spiritual  priesthood.7 

1  “  Concerning  Rujpert  of  Duytz ,  it  is  difficult  to  state  his  opinion  in  pre¬ 
cise  terms,  inasmuch  as  he  expressed  himself  at  different  times  in  different 
ways.”  Klee ,  Dogmengesckickte,  p.  202.  But  compare  his  Commentary 
in  Exod.  Lib.  ii.  c.  10  :  Sicut  naturam  humanam  non  destruxit,  cum  illain 
operatione  sua  ex  utero  Virginis  Deus  Verbo  in  unitatem  personae  conjunxit, 
sic  substantiam  panis  et  vini,  secundum  exteriorem  speciem  quinque  sensibus 
subactam,  non  mutat  aut  destruit,  cum  eidem  Verbo  in  unitatem  corporis 
ejusdem  quod  in  cruce  pependit,  et  sanguinis  ejusdem  quern  de  latere  suo 
fudit,  ista  conjungit.  Item  quomodo  Verbum  a  summo  demissum  caro 
factum  est,  non  mutatum  in  carnem,  sed  assumendo  carnem,  sic  panis  et 
vinum,  utrumque  ab  imo  sublevatum,  fit  corpus  Christi  et  sanguis,  non  muta¬ 
tum  in  carnis  saporem  sive  in  sanguinis  horrorem,  sed  assumendo  invisibiliter 
utriusque,  divinse  scilicet  et  humanse,  quae  in  Christo  est,  immortalis  sub¬ 
stantiae  veritatem. — De  div.  Off.  ii.  2  :  Unus  idemque  Deus  sursum  est  in 
came,  hie  in  pane.  He  called  the  bread,  Deifer  panis. — Panem  cum  sua 
carne,  vinum  cum  suo  jungebat  sanguine.  But  he  also  spoke  of  the  bread 
and  wine  being  converted  and  transformed  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 
Compare  the  passages  quoted  by  Klee ,  1.  c.  [Panis  et  vinum  in  verurn  corpus 
et  sanguinem  Domini  transferuntur  ;  Div.  Offic.  ii.  2.  Cum  igitur  vino  ver¬ 
bum  crueis  et  passionis  accedit,  quae  ratio  vetat,  ut  non  idem  sanguis,  qui  pro 
multis  in  remissionem  peccatorum  fusus  est,  debeat  credi  ?. . . .  Non  percipiens 
ea,  quae  sunt  Dei,  videlicet,  quia  nec  panis,  nec  vinum,  aliquid  de  exteriori 
specie  mutavit,  idcirco  sapere  non  potes,  nec  vis,  quod  vere  factum  sit  corpus 
et  sanguis  Domini :  in  Johan,  vi.  On  Rupert ,  comp.  Neander ,  Hist.  Dogm. 
531.  On  Malachias ,  abp.  of  Armagh,  see  ibid.  532.] 

2  He  died  a.  d.  1306.  He  wrote  .  Determinatio  de  Modo  existendi  Cor¬ 
pus  Christi  in  Sacramento  Altaris  alio  quam  sit  ille  quern  tenet  Ecclesia ; 
this  work  was  published  Lond.  1686,  8.  Comp.  Cas.  Oudinus ,  Dissertatio 
de  Doctrina  et  Scriptis  Jo.  Parisiensis,  in  Comment,  de  Scriptt.  Eccles.  T.  iii. 
Col.  634,  ss.  Schrockh ,  Kirchengesch.  xxviii.  p.  VO,  ss.  Munscher ,  ed.  by 
von  Colin,  p.  256-58.* 

3  It  is  of  special  importance  that  he  acknowledged  the  impossibility  of 
proving  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  from  Scripture  (Quodl.  iv.  Qu.  35). 
He  developed  his  own  views  in  his  Tractatus  de  Sacramento  Altaris,  and 
elsewhere ;  the  passages  are  collected  by  Rettberg  (Occam  und  Luther,  in 
the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1839,  part  1).  Though  Occam  retained  the 
orthodox  doctrine  of  the  accidents  (§  193,  note  6),  he  could  not  attach  any 
distinct  meaning  to  the  notion  that  the  substance  of  the  elements  had  vanished, 
because  he  was  still  obliged  to  conceive  of  the  body  of  Christ  and  the  bread 

9 

*  As  early  as  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century  several  professors  in  the  University 
of  Paris  had  been  charged  with  holding  incorrect  opinions  concerning  the  Lord’s  Supper ; 
see  the  letter  addressed  to  Pope  Clement  IY.  in  Bulseus,  vol.  iii.  pp.  372,  373  :. . .  .Esse 
Parisiis  celebrem  opinionem  tunc  temporis  de  mysterio  Eucharistiae,  qua  contendebatur, 
corpus  Christi  non  esse  vere  in  altari,  sed  sicut  signatum  sub  signis. 


106 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


as  being  in  one  and  the  same  place.  Thus  we  may  “  suppose  the  real  theory 
of  Occam  to  have  been  this ,  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  contained  in  the  host  in  the 
same  manner  in  which  soul  and  body  together  occupy  one  and  the  same  space  ; 
and  as  the  soul  exists  wholly  in  every  member ,  so  Christ  exists  wholly  in 
every  single  host Rettberg ,  p.  93.  Occam  carried  out  his  notion  of  the 
ubiquity  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  most  paradoxical  manner.  The  stone 
thrown  into  the  air,  is,  in  its  transit,  in  the  same  place  where  the  body  of 
Christ  is,  etc.  This  ubiquity,  however,  is  not  the  foundation,  but  the  con¬ 
sequence,  of  his  doctrine.  See  Rettberg ,  p.  96. — The  systems  of  Occam  and 
of  Luther  are  compared  with  each  other,  ibid.  p.  123,  ss. 

4  See  Cramer ,  vii.  pp.  804,  805,  who  says,  “  none  of  the  scholastics  enter¬ 
tained  views  more  nearly  allied  to  those  of  Luther  than  Durandus He 
did  not  directly  oppose  transubstantiation,  but  he  conceded  that  there  were 
other  possible  ways  in  which  Christ  might  be  present,  and  particularly  this, 
that  the  substance  of  the  bread  might  remain,  and  the  substance  of  the  body 
of  Christ  be  united  with  it.  The  hoc  est  might  mean  the  same  as — conten- 
tum  sub  hoc  est.  He  distinguished  between  the  matter  and  the  form ;  the 
matter  of  the  bread,  he  says,  exists  under  the  form  of  the  body  of  Christ. 

5  Trialogus  Lib.  iv.  c.  2-10,  e.  g.  c.  6,  p.  127  (alias,  p.  cix.)  :  Inter  omnes 
haereses,  qua3  unquam  pullularunt  in  ecclesia  sancta  Dei,  non  fuit  nefandior, 
quam  hseresis  ponens  accidens  sine  subjecto  esse  hoc  venerabile  sacramen- 
tum.  He  also  opposed  the  doctrine  of  impanation,  c.  8  :  Sum  certus  quod 
sententia  ista  impanationis  est  impossibilis  atque  haeretica.  He  could  not 
endure  the  thought,  that  in  that  case  the  baker  would  prepare  the  body  of 
Christ,  instead  of  the  priest ! — According  to  Wycliffe,  Christ  is  not  present 
in  the  bread  realiter,  sed  habitudinaliter,  secundum  similitudinem.  In  illus¬ 
tration  of  his  views,  he  also  referred  to  mirrors,  in  which  the  one  counte¬ 
nance  of  Christ  is  reflected  in  various  ways  to  the  eyes  of  the  devout.  The 
conversio  which  takes  place,  is  a  change  from  the  inferior  to  the  superior 
(this  was  the  ancient  opinion,  which  was  also  adopted  by  Berengar).  He 
distinguished  (in  his  confession  in  presence  of  the  Duke  of  Lancaster)  a — 
triplex  modus  essendi  corpus  Christi  in  hostia  consecrata :  1.  Modus  virtualis, 
quo  benefacit  per  totum  suum  dominium  secundum  bona  naturae  vel  gratiae  ; 
2.  Modus  spiritualis,  quo  corpus  Christi  est  in  eucharistia  et  sanctis  per 
Spiritum  Sanctum  ;  3.  Modus  sacramentalis,  quo  corpus  Christi  singulariter 
est  in  hostia  consecrata.  On  the  other  hand,  Christ  is  only  in  heaven,  sub- 
stantionaliter,  corporaliter,  dimensionaliter.  Of  like  import  are  the  following 
three,  of  the  10  Conclusiones  Haereticae,  which  were  condemned  by  the  Lon¬ 
don  Council  of  1382  (Mansi,  xxvii.  691)  :  1.  Quod  substantia  panis  mate- 
rialis  et  vini  maneat  post  consecrationem  ;  2.  Quod  accidentia  non  maneant 
sine  subjecto;  3.  Quod  Christus  non  sit  in  sacramento  altaris  identice,  vere 
et  realiter.  Comp.  Ebrard,  i.  501.  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  501,  sq.  [Vaughan's 
Life  of  Wycliffe.] 

8  Jerome  of  Prague  at  least  was  charged  by  the  Council  of  Constance 
with  holding  such  opinions  as  follows  :  Quod  panis  non  transubstantiabatur 
in  corpus  Christi,  nec  est  corpus  Christi  in  sacramento  prsesentialiter  et  cor¬ 
poraliter,  sed  ut  signatum  in  signo.  Item,  quod  in  hostia  sive  sacramento 
altaris  non  est  vere  Christus. — Christus  passus  est  in  cruce,  sed  hostia  altaris 


§  197.  The  Greek  Church. 


107 


nunquam  est  passa  neque  patitur ;  ergo  in  hostia  in  sacramento  altaris  non 
est  Christus. — Mures  non  possunt  comedere  Christum  ;  sed  mures  possunt 
hostiam  consecratam  comedere :  ergo  hostia  in  sacramento  altaris  non  est 
Christus  ;  see  Hermann  von  der  Hardt ,  T.  iv.  P.  viii.  p.  646. — On  the  other 
hand  Poggi  (Ep.  ad  Aretin.)  gives  the  following,  relation  :  Cum  rogaretur, 
quid  sentiret  de  sacramento,  inquit :  Antea  panem,  postea  vero  Christi  corpus, 
et  reliqua  secundum  fidem.  Turn  quidam  :  Ajunt  te  dixisse,  post  consecra- 
tionem  remanere  panem.  Turn  ille  :  Apud  pistorem,  inquit,  panis  remanet ; 
see  Klee ,  Dogmengesch.  ii.  p.  205,  note  7. — Hus  did  not  oppose  the  doctrine 
of  the  church  in  decided  terms  ;  he  only  endeavored  to  justify  himself  on 
the  point,  that  he  believed  in  the  real  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ,  with¬ 
out  entering  into  any  further  explanation  of  the  modus ;  see  his  Tractatus  de 
Corpore  Christi  in  the  above  Histor.  et  Monum.  fol.  cxxiii.  ss.  Munscher , 
edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  260. 

7  See  Ullmann ,  p.  328-340  (where  extracts  are  given  from  Wessel's  trea¬ 
tises  :  De  Oratione  VIII.,  de  Sacram.  Eucharistise,  especially  c.  10,  24,  26, 
27  ;  Seal.  Medit.  Exempl.  i.  ii.  iii.)  In  his  opinion  the  Lord’s  Supper  is  the 
realization  and  appropriation  of  the  love  of  Christ ;  but  he  is  not  aware 
of  any  essential  difference  between  the  presence  and  appropriation  of  Christ 
in  the  Lord’s  Supper  and  that  of  which  believers  are  conscious  without  the 
sacrament.  The  spiritual  participation  of  the  body  of  Christ  is  the  princi¬ 
pal  thing,  not  the  sacramental.  The  sacramental  act  (the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass)  can  be  performed  by  none  but  the  priest ;  the  inward  communion 
with  Christ  may  be  renewed  by  every  Christian. 


§  197. 

THE  GREEK  CHURCH. 

The  use  of  unleavened  bread  at  the  commemoration  of  Christ's 
death,  which  had  been  introduced  into  the  Latin  Church  from  the 
.  ninth  century,1  gave  rise  to  a  controversy  with  the  Greek  Church,  in 
the  course  of  which  the  latter  went  so  far  as  to  charge  the  former 
with  the  corruption  of  pure  religion.2  As  regards  the  doctrine  of 
the  sacrament  itself,  the  Greek  theologians  agreed  in  the  main  with 
the  divines  of  the  Western  Church,  so  far  as  this,  that  some  of 
them  propounded  the  doctrine  of  consubstantiation,3  while  others 
taught  that  of  transubstantiation,4  but  without  inferring  from  it  all 
the  consequences  which  we  find  in  the  writings  of  the  scholastics. 
The  Greek  Church  also  preserved  the  ancient  custom  of  admin¬ 
istering  the  Lord’s  Supper  to  the  laity  sub  utraque  forma.5 

1  On  this  point  see  Neander ,  Church  Hist.  iii.  584.  The  hosts,  properly 
so  called  (i.  e .,  the  consecrated  wafers),  did  not  come  into  use  till  later,  and, 
according  to  some  writers,  not  till  the  second  half  of  the  twelfth  century. 
Compare  J.  A.  Schmidt ,  de  Oblatis  Eucharisticis,  quae  Hostiae  vocari  solent. 
Ed.  2.  Helmst.  1733-4.  Augusti  viii.  p.  375,  ss. 


j.08 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


2  This  was  clone  by  Michael  Cerularius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and 
Leo  of  Acrida  with  him,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  John,  Bishop  of  Trani,  in 
Apulia  (in  Baronins  Annals,  ad  ann.  1053,  No.  22,  and  Canisius  Lect. 
Antt.  ed.  Basnage,  T.  iii.  P.  1,  p.  281).  He  derived,  strangely  enough,  the 
noun  ciprog  from  the  verb  aqxe,  and  appealed,  in  support  of  his  theory,  to 
Matt.  xxvi.  17,  18,  20,  26-28,  as  well  as  to  Matt.  v.  13,  and  xiii.  33  (the 
three  measures  of  meal  are,  in  his  opinion,  an  image  of  the  Trinity  !) — 
Division  into  Azymites  and  Prozymites  (Fermentarii).  Vain  attempts  of  the 
Emperor,  Constantine  Monomachus,  and  the  Pope  Leo  IX.  to  make  peace. — 
The  reply  of  Humbert  (prim.  ed.  Baronius,  in  Append.  T.  xi. ;  Canisius,  1.  c. 
T.  iii.  P.  1,  p.  283,  ss.)  is  given  by  Gieseler ,  ii.  §  42,  note  5.  After  the  con¬ 
troversy  had  been  carried  on  for  some  time  (<?.  <?.,  by  Nicetas  Pectoratus,  and 
others,  the  Council  of  Florence  at  last  granted  permission  to  the  Greeks  to 
retain  their  own  rite  :  see  Mansi,  T.  xxxi.  Col.  1029  and  1031.  Comp. 
Schrockh,  xxiv.  p.  210,  ss.  Neander  and  Gieseler ,  1.  c. 

3  John  Damascenus  quoted  (De  Fide  Orthodoxa  iv.  13,)  from  the  writings 
of  Cyril,  Jerome,  and  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  those  passages  which  appeared 
to  him  to  carry  with  them  the  greatest  weight.  He  decidedly  rejected  the 
symbolical  interpretation,  p.  271  :  O vn  egtl  Tvnog  o  dprog  teal  o  olvog  tov 
odpaTog  real  alpaTog  rov  Xpiorov *  pg  y evolto'  ahh’  avro  to  o&pa  rov 
UVp'lOV  TEdECOpEVOV,  avTOv  tov  nvpiov  slnovTog.  T ovro  pov  egtlv ,  ov  rvreog 
tov  odpaTog ,  ah  ha  to  o&pa'  teal  ov  Tvuog  tov  alpaTog ,  ahha  to  alpa. 
(Compare  John  vi.)  He  also  used  in  illustration  (applied  likewise  in  Chris- 
tologv)  the  coal  spoken  of  by  Isaiah  vi.  6  :  VA vdpat;  <5e  gvhov  htTOV  ovn  egtlv , 
ah h’  7]va>pEVOV  rcvpi.  Ovtgj  nal  6  apTog  Trjg  noLvivviag  ovn  apTog  hiTog  egtlv , 
ahh *  pviopEVog  Oeothtl’  Gojpa  6e  7)vo)pEVov  0e6tt)tl ,  ov  pia  (pvoiq  egtlv , 
ahha  pia  psv  tov  odpaTog ,  Tijg  de  rjvcvpEvrig  avTO)  OEOTT^Tog  ETEpa'  gjgte  to 
ovvapcjjoTEpov,  ov  pia  (ftvoLg,  ahha  6vo.  See  p.  273,  where  he  shows  in 
what  sense  the  elements  may  be  called  dvTLTvna  (after  the  example  of 
Basilides).  [Aawr,  Dogmengesch.  217  :  In  the  Greek  Church  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  doctrine  attained  in  John  of  Damascus  the  point  in  which  the  old 
theology  is  summed  up.  He  expressly  declares,  that  the  body  in  the  Lord’s 
Supper  is  the  body  of  Christ  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  :  only  with  this  dif¬ 
ference,  that  the  body  raised  to  heaven  does  not  actually  descend  ;  but  it  is 
his  body,  because  the  bread  and  the  wine  are  changed  into  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ.  The  Holy  Ghost  effects  this  change  in  a  supernatural  way. 
On  Zacharias  of  Chrysopolis,  see  Neander ,  Hist.  Dogm.  531.]  The  views 
which  the  Greek  theologians  entertained  with  respect  to  the  Lord’s  Supper, 
were  also  connected  with  the  part  which  they  took  in  the  controversy  con¬ 
cerning  images ;  those  who  opposed  the  worship  of  images  appealed  to  the 
fact,  that  we  have  an  image  of  our  Saviour  in  the  Lord’s  Supper,  which  was 
denied  by  the  advocates  of  that  doctrine.  Hence  the  decisions  of  the  Synod 
of  Constantinople  (a.  d.  754),  and  of  the  second  Council  of  Nice  (a.  d.  787), 
contradict  each  other:  see  Mansi ,  T.  iii.,  Col.  261,  ss.  265,  and  Munscher , 
ed.  by  von  Colin,  p.  222.  In  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Nice  it  is  dis¬ 
tinctly  stated,  that  neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  had  called  the  elements 
used  at  the  Lord’s  Supper  images.  Comp.  JRucJcert ,  Das  Abendmahl,  441, 
sy.  Gieseler ,  Dogmengesch.  533.  [Constantinople  declared  the  bread  and 


§  198.  The  Sacrament  of  Penance. 


109 


wine  to  be  rr\v  dXqOrj  rov  Xptarov  ebcova ;  Nice  said  it  was  not  an  eIku iv, 
but  the  body  and  blood  itself,  avro  ocbpa  nal  avro  alfia .] 

4  Thus  the  expressions  fieranocelodai  and  fiETapdXkeoOai  were  employed 
by  Theophylact  in  his  comment  on  Matt.  xxvi.  28.  Compare  also  what 
JEuthymius  Zigabenus  said  on  this  passage ;  in  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin, 
p.  223.  Nicolas  of  Methone  made  use  of  the  same  expression  in  his  trea¬ 
tise  quoted  by  Ullmann ,  p.  97  (Biblioth.  PP.  T.  ii.  Graeco  Latinus ;  Auctuar. 
Biblioth.  Ducaean.  Par.  1624,  p.  274) ;  he  also  there  speaks  of  a  change  of 
the  added  water,  into  the  blood  of  Christ.  He  entertained,  in  addition,  the 
scholastic  notion,  that  the  bread  and  wine  do  not  change  their  external  ap¬ 
pearance,  lest  men  might  be  terrified  by  the  sight  of  the  real  flesh  and 
blood.  The  true  design  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  he  conceived  to  consist  in 
the  | uerovola  Xpiorov.  “  The  beginnings  of  theological  speculation  may 
be  traced  in  the  theory  of  Nicolas ,  but  he  rested  satisfied  [like  the  Greek 
theologians  of  the  present  period  in  general]  with  mere  suggestions,  while 
the  scholastics  of  Ihe  Western  Church  fully  exhausted  such  subjects .”  U11- 

mann. 

6  See  Augusti ,  Archaeologie,  vol.  viii.  p.  398.  On  the  question  whether 
it  was  sufficient  to  administer  only  wine  at  the  communion  of  children,  see 
ibidem.* 

t 

§  198. 

THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE. 

The  doctrine  of  penance,  which  is  properly  speaking  implied  in 
the  ordo  salutis ,  presupposes  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  In  the 
scholastic  system  it  found  its  place  among  the  sacraments.1  Though 
it  is  only  by  a  most  unnatural  interpretation  that  this  sacrament 
can  be  proved  to  possess  a  visible  sign,  both  Peter  Lombard  and 
Thomas  Aquinas  endeavored  to  show  that  it  had  the  matter,  as  well 
as  the  form,  of  a  sacrament,  and,  as  far  as  possible,  to  distinguish 
the  one  from  the  other.3  The  scholastics  taught  that  penance  is 
composed  of  three  parts :  contritio  cordis  (in  distinction  from 
attritio),  confessio  oris ,  and  satis/ 'actio  op'erisj  Pious  minds  took 
offence,  not  so  much  at  the  formal  error  of  regarding  penance  as  a 
sacrament,  as  at  the  lax,  and  merely  external  theory  of  penance  in 
general.  Thus  the  Waldenses,  while  formally  adopting  the  three¬ 
fold  division  of  penance,  rejected  the  mechanical  ecclesiastical  prac¬ 
tice  in  the  matter.4  John  Wessel  found  fault,  not  only  with  the 
threefold  division  of  penance,  but  also  with  the  definitions  of  its 

*  Concerning  the  communion  of  children,  which  ceased  to  be  practised  from  the 
twelfth  century,  see  Zorn ,  Historia  Eucharistise  Infan tium.  Berol.  1136,  8.  Gieseler , 
Dogmengesch.  542.  [The  custom  was  abolished  for  fear  of  profanation.  It  had  been  ad¬ 
ministered  to  children,  following  Augustine’s  interpretation  of  John  vi.  54,  because  com¬ 
munion  thought  was  necessary  to  salvation.  But  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe  suggested,  that  in 
baptism  children  were  incorporated  into  Christ,  and  so  partook  of  his  flesh  and  blood.] 


110 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


component  parts.6  Gerson  and  others  opposed  the  sale  of  indul¬ 
gences.6  Wycliffe  attacked  auricular  confession.7  But  the  discus¬ 
sion  of  these  points  belongs  more  properly  to  the  history  of  the 
Church,  and  of  ethics,  than  to  that  of  doctrines.8 

1  The  earlier  custom  of  bringing  penance  into  connection  with  baptism 
(by  making  a  distinction  between  sins  committed  before  and  after  baptism — 
by  the  notion  of  a  baptism  of  tears — by  calling  it  the  second  plank  after 
shipwreck,  etc.)  led  the  scholastics  to  enumerate  penance  among  the  sacra¬ 
ments.  Comp.  Peter  Lombard ,  Sent.  iv.  Dist.  14.  A.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  P. 
iii.  Qu.  86,  Art.  4.  Klee,  Dogmengesch.  ii.  p.  326,  ss. 

2  Peter  Lombard  observed  (Dist.  22,  C.)  that  some  theologians  regarded 
the  external  performance  of  the  works  of  penance,  which  is  perceptible  by 
our  bodily  senses,  as  the  signum.  The  external  works  of  penance  are  the 
signs  of  inward  penance,  as  the  bread  and  wine  used  in  the  Lord’s  Supper 
are  the  signs  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  which  are  contained  in  the 
accidents.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  also  conceived  (Qu.  84,  Art.  1,)  the  res  sacra - 
menti  to  consist  in  internal  penance,  of  which  the  external  is  only  the  sign. 
(Every  outward  act  might  in  that  sense  be  called  a  sacrament !)  In  the 
second  article,  he  further  distinguished  between  materia  and  forma.  The 
materia  of  penance  are  the  sins  which  are  to  be  removed,  the  form  consists 
in  the  words  of  the  priest :  Absolvo  te.  Compare  the  passages  quoted  by 
Munscher ,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  pp.  276,  277.  [Th o,  proximate  matter  of  the 
sacrament  consists  in  the  acts  of  the  penitent — the  remote  matter  consists  in 
the  sins,  non  acceptanda,  sed  detestenda  et  destruanda.  The  form  consists 
in  what  is  done  by  the  priest.  Cum  autem  sacramenta  novae  legis  efficiunt 
quod  figurant. . .  .oportet  quod  forma  sacramenti  significet  id  quod  in  Sacra¬ 
mento  agitur  proportionaliter  materice  sacramenti . .  .  .But  as  the  sacrament 
is  not  in  the  consecration  or  use  of  anything,  but  in  the  removal  of  sin,  the 
form  consists  in  the  formula  of  absolution.] 

3  This  distinction  was  made  by  Hildebert  of  Tours  (who  referred  it  to 
Chrysostom  and  Augustine),  see  his  Sermo  iv.  in  Quadrag.  (Opp.  col.  324)  ; 
Sermo  xv.  col.  733  ;  quoted  by  Munscher,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  274  ;  and 
Peter  Lombard,  Sent.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  16,  Litt.  A.:  In  perfectione  autem  poe- 
nitentias  tria  observanda  sunt,  scilicet  compunctio  cordis,  confessio  oris,  satis- 

f actio  operis . Hsec  est  fructifera  poenitentia,  ut,  sicut  tribus  modis  deum 

offendimus,  scilicet  corde,  ore  et  opere,  ita  tribus  modis  satisfaciamus . 

Huic  ergo  triplici  morti  triplici  remedio  occurritur,  contritione,  confessione , 
satisfactions .  Cone.  Florent.  1439  (under  Pope  Eugen  IV.)  in  Mansi  xxxi. 
Col.  1057;  Munscher,  edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  284:  Quartum  Sacramentum 
est  poenitentise,  cujus  quasi  materia  sunt  actus  poenitentis,  qui  in  tres  distin- 
guunter  partes.  Quarum  prima  est  cordis  contritio,  ad  quam  pertinet  ut 
doleat  de  peccato  commisso  cum  proposito  non  peccandi  de  csetero.  Secunda 
est  oris  confessio,  ad  quam  pertinet  ut  peccator  omnia  peccata,  quorum 
memoriam  habet,  suo  sacerdoti  confiteatur  integraliter.  Tertia  est  satisfac- 
tio  pro  peccatis  secundum  arbitrium  sacerdotis,  quae  quidem  praecique  fit  per 
orationem,  jejunium  et  eleemosynam.  Forma  hujus  Sacramenti  sunt  verba 
absolutions,  quae  sacerdos  profert  cum  dicit :  Ego  te  absolvo,  etc.  Minister 


§  198.  The  Sacrament  of  Penance. 


Ill 


hujus  sacramenti  est  sacerdos,  liabens  auctoritatem  absolvendi  vel  ordinariam, 
vel  ex  commissione  superioris.  Effectus  hujus  sacramenti  est  absolutio  a 
peccatis. — On  the  difference  between  contritio  and  attritio,  see  Alexander  of 
Hales ,  P.  4,  Qu.  74,  membr.  1  :  Timor  servilis  principium  est  attritionis, 
timor  initialis  ( i .  e.  that  with  which  the  life  of  sanctification  begins)*  prin¬ 
cipium  est  contritionis . Item,  contritio  est  a  gratia  gratum  faciente, 

attritio  a  gratia  gratis  data.  Comp.  Thom.  Aquinas ,  Qu.  1,  Art.  2  ;  Bona - 
ventura  in  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  17,  P.  1,  Art.  2,  Qu.  3. — [ Attritio  proceeds  from 
fear,  and  not  from  love  to  God  :  contritio  is  the  real  sorrow  for  sin,  proceed¬ 
ing  from  love  ;  attritio  is  the  terminus  a  quo,  contritio  is  the  terminus  ad 
quem.  Contritio  is  necessary  to  forgiveness,  But  a  special  satisfaction  to 
justice  is  required  for  past  sins’;  hence  penance  involves  opera  poenalia. 
The  church  prescribes  these,  and  they  deliver  from  the  severer  punishments 
of  the  purgatorial  fire.]  The  necessity  of  confessio  oris  (i.  e.  that  it  was  ne¬ 
cessary  to  confess  our  sins  not  only  to  God,  but  also  to  the  priest)  was 
asserted  by  Thomas  Aquinas ,  in  Supplem.  tertise  Part.  Qusest.  8,  Art.  1 ; 
Peter  Lombard ,  expressed  himself  more  indefinitely  on  this  point,  Sent.  iv. 
Dist.  17,  Litt.  B. — The  ecclesiastical  institution  of  auricular  confession  was 
established  by  the  fourth  Council  of  the  Lateran  (under  Pope  Innocent  III.) 
Can.  xxi.  in  Decretis  Greg.  L.  v.  Tit.  38,  C.  12 :  Omnis  utriusque  sexus  fidelis, 
postquam  ad  annos  discretionis  pervenerit,  omnia  sua  solus  peccata  confitea- 
tur  fideliter,  saltern  semel  in  anno,  proprio  sacerdoti,f  et  injunctam  sibi  poeni- 
tentiam  studeat  pro  viribus  adimplere,  etc.  Gieseler ,  ii.  §  81,  note  5  ;  Mun- 
scher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  p.  282.  The  satisfactio  operis  consisted  in  fastings, 
prayers,  alms,  pilgrimages,  mortifications,  etc.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  1.  c.  Qu. 
15,  Art.  3  (quoted  by  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  p.  279.)  The  practice 
of  imposing  fines  instead  of  bodily  punishments,  gave  rise  to  the  sale  of  in¬ 
dulgences. 

4  The  Waldenses  even  attempted  to  vindicate  this  threefold  division  by 
allegorizing.  The  spices  with  which  the  women  went  to  anoint  the  body  of 
the  Lord  on  Easter  morning,  were  myrrh,  aloes  and  balsam.  From  these 
three  costly  spices  is  prepared  that  spiritual  ointment,  which  is  called  penance. 
See  Herzog ,  Die  Romanischen  Waldenser.  But  the  Waldenses  still  differed 
from  the  Catholic  Church  in  this,  that  confession  was  not  necessarily  to  be 
made  to  a  priest  of  that  church,  and  that  they  went  beyond  the  external 
works  of  penance  to  the  internal  penitence  of  the  heart. 

6  De  Sacramento  Poenitentise,  p.  782  :  Est  enim  actus  mentis  poenitentia 
sicut  peccatum :  utrumque  enim  voluntatis.  Et  sicut  peccatum  voluntatis 
tantum  est,  ita  poenitentia  solius  est  voluntatis.  For  further  particulars,  see 
Ullmann,  p.  340,  ss. 

*  On  this  account,  others  (such  as  Thomas  and  Bonaventura)  also  called  the  contritio, 
timor  filialis,  as  opposed  to  the  timor  servilis. 

f  In  the  absence  of  a  priest  it  was  permitted  to  confess  to  a  layman ;  but  this  led  to 
the  question  as  to  how  far  the  sacrament  was  complete  in  such  a  case  ?  See  Thom. 
Aquinas ,  in  Suppl.  Qu.  8,  Art.  2 :  on  the  other  side,  Bonaventura  P.  iii.  ad  Expos,  text, 
dub.  1.  p.  229.  Buns  Scotus ,  in  lib.  iv.  Dist.  17,  Qu.  1. — The  sects  of  the  middle  ages, 
even  the  Flagellantes,  preferred  confession  to  a  layman.  Comp.  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von 
Colin,  pp.  283,  284.  Gieseler ,  ii.  197.  Klee ,  Dogmengesch.  ii.  p.  252,  ss. 


112 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


8  Epistola  de  Indulgentiis  (Opp.  T.  ii.)  c.  3-5,  and  c.  9. 
T  Trialog.  libr.  iv.  c.  32. 

See  Gieseler ,  Church  Ilist.  vol.  ii.  passim. 


§  199. 

THE  SACRAMENT  OF  EXTREME  UNCTION. 

(Sacramentum  Unctionis  Extremse,  Unctionis  Infirmorum.) 

The  apostolic  injunction  respecting  the  sick,  James  v.  14  (comp. 
Mark  vi.  13),  which  probably  had  a  symbolical  and  religious  sig¬ 
nificance,  as  well  as  a  medicinal  and  therapeutic,1  gave  rise  to 
the  institution  of  a  new  sacrament,  which  came  into  general  use 
from  the  ninth  century,  and  could  be  administered  only  in  the 
dying  hour.2  But  various  opinions  obtained  on  the  question, 
whether  it  was  proper  to  repeat  the  administration  of  the  sacra¬ 
ment  in  the  case  of  a  dying  person  who  had  received  it  on  a 
former  occasion,  but  who  had  recovered,  and  been  restored  to  life  ; 
or,  whether  it  was  sufficient  to  have  administered  it  once  ?  The 
Church  did  not  ascribe  a  character  indelebilis  to  this  sacrament.3 
Its  sign  is  the  consecrated  oil,  its  essence  consists  in  the  forgiveness 
of  sin,  and  partly  also  in  the  alleviation  of  bodily  sufferings.4 

1  See  the  commentators  on  this  passage  ;  the  Venerable  Bede ,  Opp.  T.  v. 

Col.  693  ;  and  on  Mark  vi.  13,  ibid.  Col.  132  (quoted  by  Munscher ,  edit,  by 
Yon  Colin,  p.  297.  [ Bede  on  Mark  vi.  13  :  Unde  patet  ab  ipsis  Apostolis 

hunc  sanctum  Ecclesise  morem  esse  traditum,  ut  energumeni,  vel  alii  quilibet 
segroti,  unguantur  oleo  pontificali  benedictione  consecrato.]  Innocent  I. 
Ep.  21,  ad  Decentium  Ep.  Eugubinum  (written  about  the  year  410)  Cap.  8  ; 
ibid.  p.  298.  [Innocent  III. :  Quod  non  est  dubium  de  fidelibus  segrotantibus 
accipi  vel  intelligi  debere,  qui  sancto  oleo  chrismatis  perungi  possunt :  quod 
ab  Episcopo  confectum,  non  solum  sacerdotibus,  sed  omnibus  uti  Christianis 
licet  in  sua,  aut  in  suorum  necessitate  ungendum.] 

2  Concil.  Regiaticinum  (a.  d.  850)  Canon  8 :  in  Munsclier ,  ed.  by  von 
Colin,  p.  298.  [This  Council  says  of  it:  Magnum  sane  ac  valde  appetendum 
mysterium,  per  quod,  si  fideliter  poscitur,  et  remittuntur  [peccata],  et  conse- 
quenter  corporalis  salus  restituitur.] — Among  the  scholastics  Hugo  of  St. 

Victor  was  the  first  who  spoke  of  extreme  unction  as  a  sacrament ;  de 
Sacram.  ii.  P.  xv. ;  comp.  Summa  Sent.  Tract,  vi.  c.  15  ( Liebner ,  p.  481). 
The  doctrine  of  extreme  unction  formed,  in  his  system,  the  transition  to 
eschatology. — Peter  Lombard,  Sent.  iv.  Hist.  23,  mentioned  three  different 
kinds  of  consecrated  oil  (^phr/mTa) :  1.  That  with  which  priests  and  kings 
are  anointed  (on  the  head),  or  those  who  are  confirmed  (upon  the  forehead). 
2.  That  with  which  catechumens  and  newly  baptized  persons  are  anointed 

(upon  the  chest,  and  between  the  shoulders).  3.  The  unctio  infirmorum 


§  199.  The  Sacrament  of  Extreme  Unction. 


113 


(which  may  be  performed  on  various  parts  of  the  body.  Compare  note  l.)* 
He  also  distinguished  between  the  sacramentum,  and  the  res  sacramenti. 
B  :  Sacramentum  est  ipsa  unctio  exterior,  res  sacramenti  unctio  interior,  quae 
peccatorum  remissione  et  virtutum  ampliatione  perficitur.  Et  si  ex  contemtu 
vel  negligentia  hoc  praetermittitur,  periculosum  est  et  damnabile. 

3  Ivo  of  Chartres  (Ep.  225)  ad  Radulfum,  and  Geoffrey  of  Vendome  (who 
lived  about  the  year  1110),  Opusculum  de  Iteratione  Sacramenti  (in  Ser- 
mondi  Opp.  T.  iii.),  opposed  the  repetition  of  extreme  unction  (Comp. 
Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  p.  299) :  Peter  Lombard  pronounced  in  favor  of 
it,  1.  c.  Lit.  C.  [. Lombard  here  follows  Hugo  St.  Victor  almost  verbally : 
Sacramentum  unctionis  spiritualis  est  quaedam  medicina,  corporis  et  animae 
languores  mitigans  et  sanans :  nam  oleum  membra  dolentia  sanat.  Itaque 
oleum  ad  utrumque  curandum  prodest.  Si  morbus  non  revertitur,  medicina 
non  iteretur ;  si  autem  morbus  non  potest  cohiberi,  quare  deberet  medicina 
prohiberi  ? . . . .  Quare  ergo  negatur  quod  unctionis  sacramentum  super  infir- 
mum  iterari  possit  ad  reparandam  saepius  sanitatem,  et  ad  impetrandam 
saepius  peccatorum  remissionem.  | — On  the  controversy  concerning  this  point, 
which  arose  on  the  occasion  of  the  death  of  Pope  Pius  II.,  see  above  §  190, 
note  6. — The  opinion  also  obtained  during  the  middle  ages,  that  extreme 
unction  does  away  with  all  the  relations  in  which  man  stands  to  the  present 
world ;  the  person  who  had  received  exlreme  unction  immediately  renounced 
all  kinds  of  meat,  and  the  continuance  of  matrimony.  Bishops,  however,  as 
well  as  councils,  e.  g.  the  Concil.  of  Worcester  (a.  d.  1240),  combated  this 
notion.  See  Klee ,  ii.  p.  272. 

4  Comp,  the  opinion  of  Peter  Lombard ,  note  2,  and  Hugo  of  St.  Victor, 

De  Sacram.  Fid.  Lib.  ii.  P.  xv.  c.  2  :  Duplici  ex  causa  sacramentum  hoc 
institutum,  et  ad  peccatorum  scilicet  remissionem,  et  ad  corporalis  infirmitatis 
allevationem.  Comp.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  P.  iii.  in  Supplem.  Qu.  30,  Art.  1. 
— Decret.  Eugenii  IV.  in  Cone.  Florent.  a.  1439  [Mansi,  T.  xxxi.  Col.  1058) : 
Quintum  Sacramentum  est  extrema  unctio.  Cujus  materia  est  oleum  olivae 
per  episcopum  benedictum.  Hoc  sacramentum  nisi  infirmo,  de  cujus  morte 
timetur,  dari  non  debet.  Qui  in  his  locis  ungendus  est :  in  oculis  propter 
visum,  in  auribus  propter  auditum,  in  naribus  propter  oderatum,  in  ore  prop¬ 
ter  gustum  vel  locutionem,  in  manibus  propter  tactum,  in  pedibus  propter 
gressum,  in  renibus  propter  delectationem  ibidem  vigentem.  Forma  hujus 
sacramenti  est  haec  :  per  istam  unctionem  et  suam  piissimam  misericordiam, 
quicquid  peccasti  per  visum,  etc . et  similiter  in  aliis  membris.  Minis¬ 

ter  hujus  sacramenti  est  sacerdos.  Efiectus  vero  est  mentis  sanatio,  et, 
in  quantum  autem  expedit,  ipsius  etiam  corporis  (he  appeals  to  Jam.  v.  14). 

*  On  the  further  significance  of  consecrated  oil,  see  Thom.  Aquinas,  Supplem.  Qusest 
xxiv.  Art.  iv. — Klee ,  ii.  pp.  268,  269. 


114  * 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


§  200. 

THE  SACRAMENT  OF  ORDERS. 

(Sacramentum  Ordinis.) 

This  sacrament  is  intimately  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  and  with  the  distinction  made  between  the  laity  and  the  clergy. 
It  is  that  sacrament  by  which  men  are  fitted  to  administer  the  other 
sacraments.1  Accordingly,  its  essence  lies  in  the  ecclesiastical  power 
which  it  communicates.2  None  hut  bishops  can  ordain,3  and  only 
baptised  and  grown-up  males  can  receive  ordination.4  Theologians 
differed  in  their  opinions  respecting  the  validity  of  ordination  by 
heretical  bishops.6  Further  regulations  (concerning  ordines  majores 
et  minores,  etc.)  belong  to  the  canon  law.6  This  sacrament  has  a 
character  indelebilis.7 

1  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Pars  iii.,  Supplem.  Qu.  34,  Art.  3  :  Propter  Ordinem 
fit  homo  dispensator  aliorum  sacramentorum,  ergo  Ordo  habet  magis  rationem, 
quod  sit  sacramentum,  quam  alia. — Raimund  of  Sabunde  says,  that  the 
administrators  to  the  sacraments  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  the  sacred 
acts  in  which  parents  stand  to  the  act  of  generation.  They  dispense  the  ex¬ 
ternal  signs,  God  effects  the  inward  grace  ;  as  parents  beget  the  body,  but 
God  creates  the  soul  (the  creatianist  view) ;  see  Matzke ,  Raimund  von  Sa¬ 
bunde,  p.  101. 

2  The  statements  are  very  vacillating  as  to  what  really  constitutes  the 
material  (in  distinction  from  the  formal)  part  of  ordination.  As  regards  the 
external  sign  of  ordination,  there  was  a  considerable  difference  of  opinion. 
The  earlier  Church  regarded  the  laying  on  of  hands  (xeLP0T0VLa)  as  having 
a  higher,  a  magical  virtue,  while  the  later  theologians  attached  no  great  im¬ 
portance  to  it;  comp.  Klee,  ii.  pp.  280,  281.  \Klee ,  loc.  cit.,  says:  The 
ancient  church,  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures,  made  the  laying  on  of 
hands  to  be  the  matter  of  the  ordination  ;  by  this  is  effected  the  elevation 
and  consecration  to  the  episcopate,  the  presbyterate  and  the  diaconate. 
Anointing  is  also  very  early  mentioned  in  the  inauguration  of  bishops  and 
priests  (Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  x.  4  ;  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  IV. ;  Greg.  Nyss.  Virg. 
cap.  xxiv. ;  Leo,  often)  ;  and  the  laying  the  Gospels  on  the  head,  at  the  ordi¬ 
nation  of  bishops  (Hippolytus,  De  Chrism,  cap.  1  :  Chrysost.  Homil.  quod 
Veteris  Test.  Unus  Legislator,  in  Photii  Cod.  cclxxvii.)]  The  consecrated  oil 
also  was  only  occasionally  mentioned.  Thomas  Aquinas.  1.  c.  Art.  5,  can¬ 
didly  avowed,  that  while  the  efficacy  of  the  other  sacraments  consisted  in 
the  matter,  quod  divinam  virtutem  et  significat  et  continet,  it  depended,  in 
the  present  case,  on  the  person  who  administered  the  sacrament,  and  that  it 
was  transmitted  by  him  to  the  person  to  be  ordained.  Therefore,  in  his 
view,  the  act  of  ordination  is  the  material, — not  the  symbols,  which  are 
used  at  its  administration.  Nevertheless,  it  is  said  in  the  Decret.  Eugenii 
IV.  in  Cone.  Florent.  a.  1439,  1.  c.  col.  1058  :  Sextum  Sacramentum  est 


§  200.  The  Sacrament  of  Orders. 


115 


Ordinis,  ..jus  materia  est  illud,  per  cujus  traditionem  confertur  Ordo  :  sicut 
Presbyteratus  traditur  per  calicis  cum  vino  et  patense  cum  pane  porrec 
tionem  ;  JDiaconatus  vero  per  libri  Evangeliorum  dationem ;  Subdiaconatus 
vero  per  calicis  vacui  cum  patena  vacua  superposita  traditionem,  et  similiter 
de  aliis  per  rerum  ad  ministeria  sua  pertinentium  assignationem.  Forma 
sacerdotii  tabs  est :  Accipe  potestatem  offerendi  sacrificium  in  ecclesia  pro 
vivis  et  mortuis,  in  nomine  Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti.  Et  sic  de 
aliorum  ordinum  formis,  prout  in  pontificali  remano  late  continetur.  Com¬ 
pare  also  Peter  Lombard ,  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  24.  He  calls  (Lit.  B.)  the  tonsure 
(corona)  the  signaculum,  quo  signantur  in  partem  sortis  ministerii  divini .  . . 
Denudatio  capitis  est  revelatio  mentis  [God  grant  it !].  Clericus  enim  secre- 
torum  Dei  non  ignarus  esse  debet.  Tondentur  etiam  capilli  usque  a,d  reve- 
lationem  sensuum,  scilicet  oculorum  et  aurium,  ut  vitia  in  corde  et  opere 
pullulantia  doceantur  prsecidenda,  ne  ad  audiendum  et  intelligendum  verbum 
Dei  prsepediatur  mens,  pro  quo  servato  reddetur  in  excelsis  corona. 

3  Decret.  Eug.  IV.  loc.  cit. :  Ordinarius  minister  hujus  sacramenti  est 
Episcopus.  Comp.  Thom.  Aqu .,  Qu.  38,  Art.  1. 

4  This  is  self-evident.  Concerning  the  age  at  which  persons  may  be  or¬ 
dained,  the  following  regulations  were  made  :  ut  Subdiaconus  non  ordinetur 
ante  quatuordecim  annos,  nec  Diaconus  ante  viginti  quinque,  nec  Presbyter 
ante  triginta.  Deinde,  si  dignus  fuerit,  ad  episcopatum  eligi  potest ;  see  Peter 
Lombard ,  loc.  cit.  lit.  I.  The  priests  were  to  be  thirty  years  old,  because 
Christ  (according  to  Luke  iii.)  commenced  his  public  ministry  at  the  age  of 
thirty  years. 

3  The  views  of  Peter  Lombard  on  this  point  were  still  unsettled,  Sent.  iv. 
Dist.  25,  De  ordinatis  ab  hsereticis.  Thomas  Aquinas  P.  iii.,  in  Supplem. 
Dist.  38,  Art.  2,  gave  it  as  his  final  opinion,  quod  (hseretici)  vera  sacramenta 
conferunt,  sed  cum  eis  gratiam  non  dant,  non  propter  inefficaciam  sacramen- 
torum,  sed  propter  peccata  recipientium  ab  eis  sacramenta  contra  prohibi- 
tionem  ecclesise.  As  the  present  question  was  analogous  to  that  concern¬ 
ing  the  baptism  of  heretics,  it  was  to  be  decided  on  the  same  principles; 
see  Auxilius ,  quoted  by  Klee ,  ii.  p.  282.  [Si  enim  non  perdit  baptizatus 
baptismum,  etiam  eliminatus  ab  ecclesia,  quo  facto  perdit  sacratus  licet  ex- 
communicatus  sacramentum  suse  impositionis  posse  nisi  ad  tempus  obtem- 
perando  priori,  ut  paulo  post  absolutus  iterum  fungatur  officio,  sicut  et 
baptizatus  ecclesise  ingressum  ?  Est  igitur  posse,  sed  non  in  actu.  Auxilius , 
Libell.  super  Caus.  et  Negot.  Fonnosi  Papse.] 

6  Peter  Lombard ,  loc.  cit.  The  seven  classes  of  Holy  Orders  are  enu¬ 
merated  in  the  following  succession,  commencing  with  the  lowest :  Ostiarii, 
Lectores,  Exorcistse,  Acoluthi — Subdiaconi,  Diaconi,  Presbyteri. 

7  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  25,  Art.  2,  Qu.  37,  Art.  5,  quoted  by  Munscher, 
edit,  by  von  Colin,  p.  303.  [To  the  objection,  that  the  character  conferred 
was  not  indelible,  because  the  person  could  return  to  the  laity,  Aquinas  re¬ 
plied  :  Quantumcunque  homo  ad  laicatum  se  transferat,  semper  tamen  manet 
in  eo  character.  Quod  patet  ex  hoc  quod,  si  ad  clericatum  revertatur,  non 
iterum  Ordinem  quern  habuerat  suscipit.] 


116 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


§  201. 

THE  SACRAMENT  OF  MATRIMONY. 

(Sacramentum  matrimonii  conjugii.) 

One  of  the  strange  contradictions  found  in  the  general  views  of  the 
Catholic  Church  during  the  middle  ages,  was,  that,  while  on  the  one 
hand  single  life  was  thought  to  he  a  special  virtue,  on  the  other 
hand  matrimony  was  numbered  among  the  sacraments.1  Much  in¬ 
genuity  was  indeed  required  to  show  the  true  signs  of  a  sacrament 
in  matrimony  in  the  concrete,  as  they  were  specified  by  the  Church 
itself  in  the  abstract.  In  the  absence  of  a  visible  material  element, 
matrimony  itself  was  regarded  as  a  type  of  the  union  of  Christ 
with  the  Church  (according  to  Eph.  v.  32),  and  the  word  yvarrjpLov , 
translated  sacramentum,  as  the  Vulgate  has  it.2  That  it  was  a 
divine  institution  was  more  easily  shown ;  in  fact,  as  regards  an¬ 
tiquity,  matrimony  occfipied  the  first  place  among  the  sacraments, 
since  it  was  instituted  in  Paradise.3  Though  it  has  not  a  character 
indelebilis,  it  is  indissoluble  as  a  sacrament,  even  where  bodily  separa¬ 
tion  may  have  taken  place.4  Further  regulations  concerning  con¬ 
jugal  duties,  prohibited  relationships,  etc.,  belong  partly  to  the  canon 
law,  partly  to  ethics.6  According  to  the  laws  of  the  Western  Church, 
the  two  sacraments  of  matrimony ^and  of  holy  orders  so  exclude  each 
other,  that  he  who  receives  the  one  must,  as  a  general  rule,  renounce 
the  other.6 

1  Peter  Lombard ,  loc.  cit.  Dist.  xxvi.  F.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  53,  Art.  3. 
— Some  scholastics,  however,  restricted  the  idea  of  sacrament ;  thus  Duran- 
dus,  Sent.  iv.  Dist.  26,  Qu.  3.  No.  8,  quoted  by  Klee,  Dogmengesch.  ii.  p. 
302.  (Cramer,  vii.  p.  807) :  Quod  matrimonium  non  est  sacramentum 
stricte  et  proprie  dictum,  sicut  alia  sacraraenta  novae  legis.  On  the  opinions 
of  Abelard  and  Peter  John  Oliva ,  see  ibidem. — \_Abelard ,  Theol.  Christ, 
cap.  xxxi.  :  Quod  (conjugium)  quidem  sacramentum  est,  sed  non  confert 
aliquod  donum,  sicut  caetera  faciunt,  sed  tamen  mali  remedium  est,  datur 
enim  propter  incontinentiam  refraenandam,  unde  magis  ad  indulgentiam. 
Peter  Oliva  held  the  same  view,  but  retracted.] — That  which  constitutes  the 
sacrament  of  matrimony  is  not  the  performance  of  the  ceremony  by  the 
priest,  hut  the  consensus  of  husband  and  wife.  Peter  Lombard ,  Dist.  xxvii. 
C.  Respecting  particular  decrees  of  popes  and  councils,  see  Klee,  ii.  p.  305. 

[The  scholastics  generally  held,  that  the  will  of  the  contracting  parties  con¬ 
stitutes  the  marriage  ;  they  complete  the  sacrament ;  secret  marriages,  though 
forbidden,  are  valid.  In  none  of  the  ancient  rituals  is  there  a  sacramental 
form  of  marriage  to  he  spoken  by  the  priests.] 

3  Peter  Lombard,  loc.  cit....Ut  enim  inter  conjuges  conjunctio  est 

secundum  consensum  animorum,  et  secundum  permixtionem  corporum  :  sic 


§  201.  The  Sacrament  of  Matrimony. 


117 


Ecclesia  Christo  copulatur  voluntate  et  natura,  qua  idem  vult  cum  eo  et  ipse 
formam  sumsit  de  natura  hominis.  Copulata  est  ergo  sponsa  sponso  spiri- 
tualiter  et  corporaliter,  i.  e.  charitate  ac  conformitate  naturae.  Hujus  utriusque 
copulae  figura  est  in  conjugio.  Consensus  enim  conjugum  copulam  spiri- 
tualem  Christi  et  ecclesiae,  quae  fit  per  cliaritatem,  significat.  Commixtio 
vero  sexuum  illam  significat,  quae  fit  per  naturae  .conformitatem. — Eugen.  IV. 
in  Cone.  Florent.  loc.  cit.  col.  1058,  s.  :  Septimum  est  sacramentum  Matri¬ 
monii,  quod  est  signum  conjunctionis  Christi  et  Ecclesiae  secundum  Apos- 
tolum  dicentem  (Eph.  v.  31)  :  Sacramentum  hoc ,  etc. 

*  Compare  above  §  190,  note  1.  A  distinction,  however,  should  be  made 
— viz.  prior  to  the  fall  matrimony  was  instituted,  ad  officium,  posterior  to  it, 
ad  remedium  (propter  illicitum  motum  devitandum) ;  see  Peter  Lombard , 
loc.  cit.  Dist.  xvi.  B.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  42,  Art.  2,  Conclus. 

4  Peter  Lombard ,  loc.  cit.  Dist.  xxxi.  lit.  B. :  Separatio  autem  gemina  est, 
corporalis  scilicet  et  sacramentalis.  Corporaliter  possunt  separari  causa  for- 
nicationis,  vel  ex  communi  consensu  causa  religionis,  sive  ad  tempus  sive 
usque  in  finem.  Sacramentaliter  vero  separari  non  possunt  dum  vivunt,  si 
legitimae  personae  sint.  Manet  enim  vinculum  conjugale  inter  eos,  etiamsi 
aliis  a  se  discedentes  adhaeserint. — Eugen.  IV.  in  Cone.  Florent.  1.  c. : 
Quamvis  autem  ex  causa  fornicationis  liceat  tori  divisionem  facere,  non  tamen 
aliud  matrimonium  contrahere  fas  est,  cum  matrimonii  vinculum  legitime 
contracti  perpetuum  sit. — The  notions  of  the  Greeks  concerning  the  indis¬ 
solubility  of  matrimony  were  less  rigid  ;  the  Nestorians  alone  form  an  excep¬ 
tion;  see  Klee ,  ii.  pp.  297,  298.  [ Assemanus ,  Diss.  de  Nestorian.  in  Bib. 
Orient.  Tom.  iii.  Pars.  iii.  p.  326.] 

5  The  theologians  of  the  time  treated  of  all  those  regulations  in  their 
works  on  dogmatic  theology.  Peter  Lombard  had  set  them  an  example, 
Comp.  Dist.  xxiv.-xliii. — Many  definitions  of  Peter  Lombard,  Bonaventura, 
and  others,  do  not  at  all  involve  the  idea  of  sacrament;  such  as,  that  matri¬ 
mony  is  conjunctio  legitima  maris  et  feeminae,  individuam  vitae  consuetudinem 
retinens,  etc.  The  same  may  be  said  with  regard  to  their  statements,  that 
the  design  of  matrimony  is  the  propagation  of  the  human  race,  to  be  a 
safeguard  against  sin,  etc. 

8  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  53,  Art.  3  :  Ordo  sacer  de  sui  ratione  habet  ex 
quadam  congruentia,  quod  matrimonium  impediri  debeat,  quia  in  sacris 
Ordinibus  constituti  sacra  vasa  et  sacramenta  tractant,  et  ideo  decens  est  ut 
munditiam  corporalem  per  continentiam  servent.  Sed  quod  impediat  matri¬ 
monium  ex  constitution e  ecclesiae  habet.  Tamen  aliter  apud  Latinos,  quam  apud 
Graecos.  Quia  apud  Graecos  impedit  matrimonium  contrahendum  solum  ex  vi 
Ordinis,  sed  apud  Latinos  impedit  ex  vi  Ordinis  et  ulterius  ex  voto  continentiae, 
quod  est  Ordinibus  sacris  annexum  :  quod  etiamsi  quis  verbotenus  non  emittat, 
ex  hoc  ipso  tamen,  quod  Ordinem  suscipit  secundum  ritum  occidentalis  eccle¬ 
siae,  intelligitur  emisisse.  Et  ideo  apud  Graecos  et  alios  Orientales  sacer  Ordo 
impedit  matrimonium  contrahendum,  non  tamen  matrimonii  prius  contracti 
usum  :  possunt  enim  matrimonio  prius  contracto  uti,  quamvis  non  possunt 
matrimonium  denuo  contrahere.  Sed  apud  occidentalem  ecclesiam  impedit 
matrimonium  et  matrimonii  usum,  nisi  forte  ignorante  aut  contradicente 
uxore  vir  Ordinem  sacrum  susceperit,  quia  ex  hoc  non  potest  ei  aliquod  prae- 


118 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


judicium  generari.  The  priests,  on  the  one  hand,  are  excluded  from  the 
sacrament  of  matrimony,  nor  are  the  laity,  on  the  other,  under  any  necessity 
of  observing  it.  Therefore  matrimony  is  neither  a  sacramentum  necessitatis, 
as  baptism,  penance,  and  the  Lord’s  Supper,  nor  a  sacramentum  dignitatis, 
as  Holy  Orders,  but  a  sacramentum  consilii.  Alanus  ab  Insulus  in  his  Ex- 
positio  (quoted  by  Klee ,  ii.  p.  304,  note.) 

Protestant  writers  on  the  history  of  doctrines  can  not  he  expected  to  investigate  fully 
the  history  of  each  separate  sacrament.  But  this  much  appears  to  be  certain,  that  it  is 
exceedingly  difficult,  in  the  case  of  most  of  the  so-called  sacraments,  to  prove  that  they 
are  founded  upon  a  definite  idea  of  sacrament,  according  to  the  canon  established  by  the 
Church  itself.  In  the  case  of  some  (such  as  penance,  the  ordination  of  priests,  and  matri¬ 
mony)  we  have  no  visible  element,  properly  speaking,  which  might  be  regarded  as 
sacrae  rei  signum  (as  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord’s  Supper,  or  the  water  of  baptism, 
or  the  XP~U 7/xa)i  unless  we  transpose  the  whole  thing,  and  convert  into  the  symbol  that 
which  is  properly  the  res  sacramenti.  In  the  case  of  others,  the  divina  institutio  is 
either  altogether  wanting  ( e .  y.,  in  the  case  of  confirmation),  or  it  can  only  be  demon¬ 
strated  by  that  sort  of  interpretation  by  which  we  may  prove  anything  (thus  in  the  case 
of  extreme  unction).  But  as.  these  theologians  were  accustomed  to  regard  the  ex¬ 
ternal  element  in  the  Lord’s  Supper  as  mere  accidens,  and  thus  destroyed  its  originally 
symbolical  character,  they  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  be  very  precise  in  the  case  of 
other  sacraments.  And  as  for  the  divina  institutio,  they  were  to  appeal  not  only  to  Scrip¬ 
ture,  but  also  to  tradition. 


SEVENTH  DIVISION. 


ESCHATOLOGY. 

§  202. 

MILLENNARIANISM.  THE  APPROACHING  END  OE  THE  WORLD. 

ANTICHRIST. 

Though  Millennarianism  (Chiliasm)  had  been  suppressed  by  the 
earlier  Church,  it  was  nevertheless  from  time  to  time  revived  by  the 
heretical  sects  of  the  present  age.  Millennarian  notions  were  pro¬ 
pounded  in  the  prophecies  of  Joachim, ,  Abbot  of  Flore,  and  the 
Evangelium  ceternum  of  the  Fratricelli,  which  was  based  upon  his 
works.1  The  dynasty  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  was  to  be  followed 
by  the  golden  age — viz.,  the  dynasty  of  the  Holy  Spirit.2  On  the 
other  hand,  the  almost  universal  expectation  of  the  approaching  end 
of  the  world,  which  was  to  take  place  about  the  year  1000,  was 
founded  upon  a  too  literal  interpretation  of  Scripture,  rather  than 
upon  Millennarian  enthusiasm.  A  similar  expectation  repeatedly 
manifested  itself  at  other  important  epochs  of  the  middle  ages.3  It 
was  connected  with  the  expectation  of  Antichrist,  concerning  whom 
several  theologians  adventured  various  suggestions,  while  many  of 
those  who  were  enemies  to  the  Komish  hierarchy,  thought  that  he 
was  none  other  than  the  Pope  himself.4  This  view  was  transmitted 
to  the  age  of  the  Eeformation. 

4 

1  Admiranda  Expositio  venerabilis  Abbatis  Joachimi  in  librum  Apocalypsis 
b,  Joannis  Apostoli  et  Evangelistae. — Liber  Concordias  Novi  ac  Veteris  Tes¬ 
tament — Psalterium  decern  Chordarum — Interpretatio  in  Jeremiam  Pro- 
phetam.  Comp.  Engelhardt,  kirchenhistor.  Abhandlungen,  p.  1, 150.  Lucke , 
Einleitung  in  die  Offenbarung  Johannis,  p.  519. — Gieseler ,  ii.  §  70,  p,  433. 
— On  the  Fatricelli  who  originally  belonged  to  the  order  of  the  Franciscan 
monks  but  were  excommunicated  in  the  14th  century,  comp,  Gieseler,  ii.  439, 
iii.  119,  173.  [ Friederich  on  Joachim,  and  the  commentaries  on  Isaiah  and 
Jerem.  in  Zeitschrift  f.  Wiss.  Theol.,  1859.  Communicated  by  Bauri] 

3  Compare  Engelhardt  and  Lucke ,  as  above.  The  first  status  lasts  5000 
years  (from  Adam  to  Christ),  the  second  lasts  1000  years,  from  Christ  to  the 
commencement  of  the  last  age  of  the  world.  This  last  age  is  the  seventh 
sabbatical  period  of  a  thousand  years.  Joachim  further  divided  the  ages  of 


120  Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 

the  world  into  forty-two  generations  ({states)  after  the  forty-two  periods  in 
the  genealogy  of  Christ,  etc.  * 

3  “  It  was  a  'prevailing  tradition  among  commentators ,  that  the  period  of 
a  thousand  gears ,  spoken  of  in  Rev.  xx.,  commenced  with  the  manifestation , 
or  the  passion  of  Christ ,  and  that  the  establishment  of  the  Christian  Church 
was  to  be  regarded  as  the  first  resurrection ,  and  the  first  epoch  of  the  kingdom 
of  a  thousand  years .  This  interpretation ,  which  had  been  adopted  in  the 
West ,  especially  from  the  time  of  Augustine ,  had  the  advantage  of  precluding 
the  fancies  of  millennarian  enthusiasts ,  and  accustoming  the  minds  of  Chris¬ 
tians  to  a  more  spiritual  apprehension  of  the  Apocalypse.  But  the  tradition 
of  the  Church  had  not  decided  whether  the  computation  of  the  thousand 
years  was  to  be  founded  upon  the  common  system  of  chronology ,  or  whether 
that  number  was  to  be  looked  upon  as  an  apocalyptical  symbol.  Inasmuch 
as  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  numbers  was  generally  adopted  by  the 
common  mind ,  notwithstanding  all  allegorical  conceits ,  the  notion  began  to 
spread  in  the  Christian  world  with  the  approach  of  the  year  1000  —  that ,  in 
accordance  ivith  Scripture,  the  millennial  kingdom  would  come  to  a  close  at 
the  completion  of  the  first  period  of  a  thousand  years  after  Christ :  that , 
further,  Antichrist  would  then  appear,  and  the  end  of  the  world  take  place! 
Lucke,  loc.  cit.  pp.  514,  515.  On  the  commotions  which  happened  at  that 
time  in  the  Church,  comp.  Trithemii  Chronic.  Hirsaug.  ad  ann.  960.  Glaber 
Badulphus,  Hist,  sui  Temp.  Lib.  iv.  c.  6  (in  Duchesne ,  Scriptt.  Francorum 
T.  iv.  p.  22,  ss.)  Schmid,  Geschichte  des  Mysticismus  im  Mittellalter,  p. 
89.  Gieseler,  ii.  p.  159.  The  crusades  were  also  connected  with  millenna¬ 
rian  expectations,  see  Corrodi,  ii.  p.  522,  ss.,  Schmid,  1.  c. — When,  in  the 
course  of  the  fourteenth  century,  the  plague,  famine,  and  other  divine  pun¬ 
ishments,  reminded  men  of  the  uncertainty  of  all  that  is  earthly,  and  signs 
were  seen  in  the  heavens,  it  was  especially  the  Flagellantes  who  announced 
that  the  end  of  the  world  was  nigh  at  hand ;  the  same  was  done  by  Martin 
Loquis  a  native  of  Moravia,  and  priest  of  the  Taborites,  see  Schrockh, 
xxxiv.  p.  687.  [Comp.  Hecker,  Epidemics  of  Middle  Ages,  Lond.,  1846, 
and  B.  D.  Hitchcock,  in  Am.  Theol.  Review,  i.  241,  sq.] 

4  Comp.  John  Damascenus  De  Fide  Orthod.  iv.  26.  Elucidarium  c.  68.* 
It  was  a  current  opinion  during  the  middle  ages,  that  Antichrist  would 
either  be  brought  forth  by  a  virgin,  or  be  the  offspring  of  a  bishop  and  a 
nun.  About  the  year  950,  Adso,  a  monk  in  a  monastery  of  western  Fran¬ 
conia,  wrote  a  treatise  on  Antichrist,  in  which  he  assigned  a  later  time  to  his 
coming,  and  also  to  the  end  of  the  world  (see  Schrockh,  Kirchengesch.  xxi. 
p.  243.)  He  did  not  distinctly  state  whom  he  understood  by  Antichrist. 
For  a  time  it  was  thought  that  Mohammed  was  the  Antichrist.  He  was 
thus  designated  by  Pope  Innocent  III.  (a.  d.  1213.)  The  numeral  666  in¬ 
dicated  the  period  of  his  dominion,  which  was  therefore  now  about  to  come 
to  an  end. — The  antichristian  prophets  spoken  of  in  the  book  of  Revelation, 
were  thought  to  denote  the  heresy  which  spread,  with  increased  rapidity, 
from  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century.  On  the  other  hand,  during  the  strug- 

*  Concerning  this  work,  which  was  formerly  ascribed  to  Anselm,  see  Schrockh ,  xxviii. 

p.  42  7, 


§  203.  Mediaeval  Tendencies  and.  Christian  Art.  121 


gles  of  the  German  emperors  with  the  popes,  it  happened  more  than  once 
that  the  former  applied  the  title  Antichrist  to  the  latter ;  we  find  instances 
of  this  as  early  as  the  times  of  the  Hohenstaufen.  Emperor  Lewis,  sur- 
named  the  Bavarian,  also  called  Pope  John  XXII.  the  mystical  Antichrist 
(, Schrockh  xxxi.  p.  108).  The  fanatical  sects  of  the  middle  ages  agreed,  for 
the  most  part,  in  giving  that  name  to  the  popes.  Thus  Amalrich  of  Bena 
taught :  Quia  Papa  esset  Antichristus  et  Roma  Babylon  et  ipse  sedet  in 
monte  Oliveti,  i.  e.  in  pinguedine  potestatis  (according  to  Ccesarius  of  Heis- 
terbach),  comp.  Engelhardt ,  kirchenhistorische  Abhandlungen,  p.  256.  The 
same  was  done  by  the  Spirituales,  etc.,  see  Engelhardt,  1.  c.  pp.  4,  56,  78,  88  ; 
Lucke ,  1.  c.  pp.  520,  521.  Even  Wycliffe  agreed  with  them  (Trialogus, 
quoted  by  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  p.  509),  as  well  as  his  disciples,  Lewis  Cobham 
(ibid.  p.  5 57),  and  Janow  :  Liber  de  Antichristo  et  membrorum  eius  anato- 
mia  (in  Historia  et  Monumento  Joh.  Huss.  P.  i.  p.  423-464,  quoted  by 
Schrockh ,  1.  c.  p.  572). — Most  of  the  orthodox  theologians,  e.  g.,  Thomas 
Aquinas,  were  opposed  to  all  literal  interpretation  of  the  Apocalypse.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  were  some,  such  as  Roger  Bacon,  who  delighted  in 
apocalyptical  interpretations,  and  calculations  of  the  time  of  Antichrist ;  see 
his  Opus  Majus  ed.  Jebb.  p.  169.  Lucke ,  1.  c.  p.  522. 


§  203. 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  MEDIAEVAL  TENDENCIES  AND  OF  CHRISTIAN  ART 

UPON  ESCHATOLOGY. 

The  tendency  of  the  age  manifested  itself  in  the  works  of  Chris¬ 
tian  art,1 *  in  which  those  subjects  were  preferred  which -had  reference 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  last  things.  While  the  hymn  a  Dies  irce 
sounded  the  terrors  of  the  general  judgment  into  the  ears  and  heart 
of  Christendom,  painters  were  employed  in  keeping  alive  a  remem¬ 
brance  of  the  end  of  all  things,  by  their  representations  of  the  dances 
of  death,  and  of  the  general  judgment  ;3  and  Dante  disclosed  in  his 
Divina  Commedia  the  worlds  of  hell,  purgatory,  and  paradise.4 
There  was  an  evident  action  and  reaction  between  these  works  of 
imagination  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  subtle  reasonings  and  defini¬ 
tions  of  the  scholastics  on  the  other,  so  that  the  one  may  be  ex¬ 
plained  by  the  other. 

1  Thus  most  of  the  magnificent  cathedrals  on  the  continent  were  built  at 

that  very  time,  when  the  end  of  all  things  was  supposed  to  be  nigh  at  hand ; 
see  Gieseler,  ii.  §  27,  note  8. 

3  The  author  of  it  was  Thomas  of  Cellano;  see  Lisco ,  Dies  Irse,  Symnus 
auf  das  Weltgericht,  Berlin,  1840.  4.  [See  Gieseler,  ii.  416,  notes  4,  5; 
506,  note  3.  A  collection  of  different  versions  by  Dr.  Coles,  published  in 
New  York,  1860.  Mohnike,  kirchen-und  literarhist.  Studien.  Stralsund. 

1834.] 


122 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


3  Gruneisen ,  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  und  Beurtheilung  der  Todtentanze 
(im  Kunstblatte  zum  Morgenblatt.  1830,  No.  22-26,)  and  bis  Nicholas 
Manuel,  p.  73. 

4  Dante  Alighieri  was  born  a.  d.  1265,  and  died  A.  d.  1321.  (As  a  theo¬ 
logian  he  belonged  to  the  school  of  Thomas  Aquinas.)  There  are  German 
translations  of  his  Divina  Comedia  by  Streckfuss,  Philalethes,  Gusek,  Kopisch, 
and  others.  [The  Vision,  or  Hell,  Pugatory,  and  Paradise,  of  Dante  Alig¬ 
hieri.  Translated  by  the  Rev.  H.  T.  Cary ,  A.M.,  Lond.,  a  new  edit.,  1847. 
F.  X.  Wcgele ,  Dante’s  Leben,  Jena,  1852.  E.  Magnier ,  Dante  et  le  moyen 
age,  Paris,  1860.  M.  Fauriel ,  Dante,  etc.,  2,  Paris,  1854.  Recent  Transla¬ 
tions  of  D.,  Christ.  Remembrancer,  April,  1857  *,  Westminster  Review,  Jan., 
1861,  (sixteen  English  versions  noticed).  R.  de  Vericour ,  Life  and  Times 
of  Dante,  Lond.,  1858.  Count  Cesare  Balbo ,  Life  and  Times  of  Dante, 
tran si.  by  J.  F.  Bunbury ,  2.  8vo.,  Lond.,  1852.  Besides  the  above  version 
of  Cary,  there  have  been  published  in  English,  translations  of  the  Commedia 
by  C.  B.  Cayley,  1854  ;  P.  Bannerman  (Edinburgh),  1850;  J.  C.  Wright, 
1845  ;  H.  C.  Jennings ;  F.  Pollock,  1854  ;  E.  O’Donnell,  1852  ;  T.  Brooks- 
bank,  1854;  H.  Boyd,  1802;  J.  W.  Thomas,  1850.  The  Inferno  was 
translated  by  J.  Dayman,  1843  ;  C.  A.  Carlyle,  1840  ;  T.  W.  Parsons,  Bos¬ 
ton,  1843  ;  Bruce  Whyte,  1859.] 

§  204. 

X* 

THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY. 

The  resurrection  of  the  human  body,  with  all  its  component 
parts,  was,  from  the  time  of  Jerome  and  Augustine,  regarded  as  the 
orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church.  John  Scotus  Erigena 
adopted  the  earlier  notions  of  Origen,1  but  his  views  did  not  obtain 
the  approbation  of  the  Catholic  Church.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Bogomiles,  Cathari,  and  other  heretical  sects,  revived  the  erroneous 
notion  of  the  Gnostics,  who,  looking  upon  matter  as  the  seat  of  sin, 
rejected  the  resurrection  of  the  body.2  Moneta ,  a  Dominican  monk, 
defended  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  in  opposition  to  the  Cathari.3  It 
was  then  further  developed  into  particulars  by  the  scholastics,4  espe¬ 
cially  by  Thomas  Aquinas ,  with  many  strange  conjectures  respect¬ 
ing  the  nature  of  the  resurrection-body.6  The  theologians  of  the 
Greek  Church  held  more  closely  to  Scripture  and  the  received  tradi¬ 
tion  of  the  Church. 

1  De  Div.  Nat.  iv.  12,  13,  p.  193  :  Omne  siquidem  quod  in  mundo  ex 
mundo  compositum  incipit  esse,  necesse  est  resolvi  et  cum  mundo  interire. 
Necessarium  erat  exterius  ac  materiale  corpus  solvi  in  ea  elementa,  ex  quibus 
assumtum  est :  non  autem  necessarium  perire,  quoniam  ex  Deo  erat,  manente 
semper  interiori  illo  et  incommutabiliter  stante  in  suis  rationibus,  secundum 
quas  cum  anima  et  in  anima  et  per  animam  et  propter  animam  constitutum 


§  204.  The  Resurrection  of  the  Body. 


123 


est.  -  Quoniam  vero  illius  corporis  materialis  atque  solubilis  manet  in  anima 
speues,  non  solum  illo  vivente,  verum  etiam  post  ejus  solutionem  et  in  ele- 

menta  mundi  reditum . Est  enim  exterius  et  materiale  corpus  signacu- 

lum  interioris,  in  quo  forma  animse  exprimitur,  et  per  hoc  forma  ejus 
rationabiliter  appellatur.  Et  ne  me  existimes  duo  corpora  naturalia  in  uno 
homine  docere :  verum  enim  est  corpus,  quo  connaturaliter  et  consubstan- 
tialiter  animae  compacto  homo  conficitur.  Illud  siquidem  materiale  quod 
est  superadditum,  rectius  vestimentum  quoddam  mutabile  et  corruptibile  veri 
ac  naturalis  corporis  accipitur,  quam  verum  corpus :  non  enim  verum  est, 

quod  semper  non  manet  (Aug.) . Inde  fit,  quod  semper  non  simpliciter, 

sed  cum  additamento  aliquo  ponitur  corpus  mortale  vel  corruptibile  vel  ter- 
renum  vel  animale,  ad  discretionem  ipsius  simplicis  corporis,  quod  primitus 
in  homine  editum  est,  et  quod  futurum  est. — Compare  ii.  23,  p.  71  :  Semel 
enim  et  simul  animas  nostras  et  corpora  in  Paradiso  conditor  creavit,  corpora 
dico  coelestia,  spiritualia ,  qualia  post  resurrectionem  futura  sunt.  Tumida 
namque  corpora,  mortalia,  corruptibilia,  quibus  nunc  opprimimur,  non  ex 
natura,  sed  ex  delicto  occasionem  ducere,  non  est  dubitandum.  Quod  ergo 
naturae  ex  peccato  adolevit,  eo  profecto  renovata  in  Christo,  et  in  pristinum 
statu m  restituta,  carebit.  Non  enim  potest  naturae  esse  coaeternum,  quod  ei 
adhaeret  propter  peccatum. 

3  The  Beguines  are  said  to  have  asserted,  quod  mortuo  corpore  hominis 
solus  spiritus  vel  anima  hominis  redibit  ad  eum,  unde  exivit,  et  cum  eo  sic 
reunietur,  quod  nihil  remanebit,  nisi  quod  ab  aeterno  fuit  Deus ;  quoted  by 
Mosheim,  pp.  257,  258,  compare  §  206,  note  9. — On  the  notions  of  the 
Bogomiles,  see  Engelhardt,  kirchenhistorische  Abhandlungen,  pp.  187,  188. 

3  Sumrna  adv.  Catharos,  Lib.  iv.  Cap.  7,  §  1. 

4  Peter  Lombard,  Sent.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  43,  ss.  (he  follows  for  the  most  part 
Augustine’s  Enchiridion),  and  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  de  Sacram.  ii.  1,  19.  The 
former  still  modestly  expresses  himself  as  follows  :  Omnibus  quaestionibus, 
quae  de  hac  re  moveri  solent,  satisfacere  non  valeo. 

6  These  definitions  are  also  for  the  most  part  founded  upon  Augustine 
(comp.  vol.  i.  §  140.)  All  men  will  die  previous  to  the  general  resurrection 
(on  account  of  original  sin)  ;  the  resurrection  will  probably  take  place  to¬ 
wards  evening,  for  the  heavenly  bodies  which  rule  over  all  earthly  matter 
must  first  cease  to  move.  Sun  and  moon  will  then  meet  again  in  that  point 
where  they  were  probably  created.  The  resurrection  will  take  place  sud¬ 
denly  in  relation  to  the  effects  produced  by  the  divine  power ;  it  will  be 
gradual  in  relation  to  the  part  the  angels  will  have  in  it.  Thomas  Aquinas 
denied  that  dust  and  ashes  have  a  natural  tendency  to  re-unite  themselves 
to  the  souls  to  which  they  were  united  in  this  world  (a  kind  of  pre- 
established  harmony),  but  supposed  that  no  other  matter  would  rise  from  the 
grave,  than  what  existed  at  the  moment  of  death.  If  that  substance  were 
to  rise  again  which  has  been  consumed  during  the  present  life,  it  would  form 
a  most  unshapely  mass. — According  to  Qu.  81,  those  who  are  raised  from 
the  dead,  will  be  in  the  setas  juvenilis,  quae  inter  decrementum  et  incremen- 
tum  constituitur.  The  difference  of  sexes  will  continue  to  exist,  but  without 
sensual  appetites.  All  the  organs  of  sense  will  still  be  active,  with  the  ex¬ 
ception  of  the  sense  of  taste.  It  is,  however,  possible  that  even  the  latter 


124 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


may  be  rendered  more  perfect,  and  fitted  for  adequate  functions  and  enjoy¬ 
ments.  Hair  and  nails  are  one  of  the  ornaments  of  man,  and  are  therefore 
quite  as  necessary  as  blood  and  other  fluids.  The  resurrection-bodies  will  be 
exceedingly  fine,  and  be  delivered  from  the  corpulence  and  heavy  weight 
which  is  now  so  burdensome  to  them ;  nevertheless,  they  will  be  tangible, 
as  the  body  of  Christ  could  be  touched  after  his  resurrection.  Their  size 
will  not  increase  after  the  resurrection,  nor  will  they  grow  either  thicker  or 
thinner.  To  some  extent  they  will  still  be  dependent  on  space  and  time ; 
yet  the  resurrection  bodies  will  move  much  faster,  and  more  easily,  from  one 
place  to  another,  than  our  present  bodies ;  they  will  be  at  liberty  to  follow 
the  tendencies  and  impulses  of  the  soul.  They  are  glorified,  bright,  and 
shining,  and  can  be  perceived  with  glorified  eyes  alone.  But  this  is  true 
only  in  reference  to  the  bodies  of  the  blessed.  The  bodies  of  the  damned 
are  to  be  ugly  and  deformed,  incorruptible,  but  capable  of  suffering,  which  is 
not  the  case  with  the  bodies  of  the  saints.  Thom.  Aquinas,  Sumra.  P.  iii.  in 
Supplem.  Qu.  75,  ss.  Cramer,  vii.  p.  777,  ss.  Comp,  also  Elucidar.  c.  69. 
On  the  opinions  of  Duns  Scotus,  see  Ritter,  Gesch.  der  Philos,  viii.  459,  sq. 

6  John  Damasccnus,  iv.  27,  p.  303  :  ’AAA’  epel  rig'  Ilwf  ey eipovrai  oi 
venpoL  ;  ”£2  rrjg  duiGTiag'  gj  rrjg  a<ppoovvyg •  6  %ovv  eig  acopa  fiovXycrEi  povy 
UETa(3aX(bv,  6  puupav  pavida  tov  oiTEppaTog  ev  ry  pyTpa  av^etv  npoara^ag, 
Kal  to  n oXvsidEg  tovto  Kal  TcoXvpop(f)ov  clttoteXeiv  rov  oibpaTog  opyavov, 
ovyp  pdXXov  to  yeyovdg  teal  diappvev  avaoTyoEi  rraXiv,  povov  (3ovXy0e(g  ; 
Xloio)  6e  odpaTL  epxovTai;  vA(ppov,  el  Toig  tov  Oeov  Xoyoig  ttlotevelv  y 
TTojpGJOig  oi)  ovyxoipeZ,  aav  rolg  epyoig  tugteve *  ov  yap  o  oirEipsig,  ov  £«o- 
TToiELTai,  sav  py  dnoOdvy  k.  r.  A.  (1  Cor.  xv.)  0 Eaoai  tolvvv,  (bg  ev  Tacpoig 
raig  avXa^i  Ta  orteppaTa  uaTaxwvvpEva.  Tig  6  TovTotg  pl^ag  evTiOslgt 
KaXdpyv  teal  tyvXXa,  Kal  aoTaxvg  ual  Tovg  XsiTTOTaTOvg  avdepiKag ^  ovx  6 
Tcov  oXcjv  dypiovpyog ;  ov  tov  Ta  naVTa  TEKTyvapivov  to  npoGTaypa ;  Ovtco 
tolvvv  ttloteve,  Kal  Tojv  vsKpcbv  Tyv  dvdoTaoiv  eoEoOai  Oeia  fiovXyoei ,  Kal 
vevpaTi *  ovvdpopov  yap  %££  Ty  fiovXyoEL  Tyv  dvvapiv. 


§  205. 

THE  GENERAL  JUDGMENT. 

The  second  advent  of  the  Lord  to  judge  the  world,  was  inter¬ 
preted  as  literally  as  possible.  After  it  has  been  preceded  by  those 
signs  of  which  Scripture  speaks,  Christ  will  appear  in  the  same 
human  form  which  he  had  when  on  earth,  but  in  his  glorified  body, 
and  as  conqueror,  accompanied  by  the  heavenly  hosts.  The  wicked, 
too,  will  behold  his  countenance,  but  with  horror.1 — The  judgment  it 
was  supposed  would  take  place  in  the  valley  of  J ehosaphat,  to  which 
some,  however,  also  applied  allegorical  interpretation.3  But  in  propor¬ 
tion  as  theologians  were  disposed  to  give  free  scope  to  their  imagina¬ 
tion,  and  to  represent  the  proceedings  of  the  general  judgment  in 
relation  to  time  and  in  a  sensuous  manner,  the  greater  was  the  diffi- 


§  205.  The  General  Judgment. 


125 


culty  to  unite  those  various  images  in  a  single  scene.3  Tliomas 
Aquinas  therefore  reminded  them  that  the  judgment  would  take 
place  mentaliter ,  because  the  oral  trial  and  defence  of  each  indi¬ 
vidual  would  require  too  much  time.4  According  to  Matthew  xix. 
28,  and  1  Cor.  vi.  2,  the  saints  are  to  sit  with  Christ  in  judgment ; 
and  inasmuch  as  monks  were  supposed  to  attain  the  highest  de¬ 
gree  of  perfection  even  in  this  world,  the  power  which  was  com¬ 
mitted  into  their  hands  by  the  institution  of  the  inquisition,  would 
easily  familiarize  men  with  the  idea  of  being  also  judged  by  them 
in  the  world  to  come.6  It  was  natural  that  the  heretics  should  beg 
to  be  excused  from  such  a  judgment ;  in  accordance,  too,  with  their 
entire  idealistic  tendency,  they  preferred  resolving  the  idea  of  the 
last  judgment  into  the  more  general  notion  of  a  retribution  immedi¬ 
ately  after  death.6 

1  Thomas  Aquinas ,  loc.  cit.  Qu.  7 3,  Art.  1  :  Christus. .  .in  forma  gloriosa 
apparebit  propter  auctoritatem,  quae  judici  debetur.  Ad  dignitatem  autem 
judiciarise  potestatis  pertinet  habere  aliqua  indicia,  quae  ad  reverentiam  et 
subjectionem  inducant,  et  ideo  adventum  Christi  ad  judicium  venientis  multa 
signa  praecedent,  ut  corda  hominum  in  subjectionem  venturi  judicis  addu- 
cantur  et  ad  judicium  prasparentur,  hujusmodi  signis  praemoniti.  Comp. 
Elucid.  c.  70.  Disc.  Qualiter  veniet  Dominus  ad  judicium?  Mag .  Sicut 
Imperator  ingressurus  civitatem,  corona  ejus  et  alia  insignia  praeferuntur,  per 
quae  adventus  ejus  cognoscitur :  ita  Christus  in  ea  forma,  qua  ascendit,  cum 
Ordinibus  omnibus  Angelorum  ad  judicium  veniens.  Angeli  crucem  ejus 
ferentes  praeibunt:  mortuos  tuba  et  voce  in  occursum  ejus  excitabunt. 
Omnia  elementa  turbabuntur,  tempestate  ignis  et  frigoris  mixtim  undique 
furente.  (Ps.  xcvi.  Wisd.  v.) — Respecting  the  damned  it  is  said,  c.  75  : 
Yidebunt  (Christum),  sed  ad  sui  perniciem.  Comp.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu. 
90,  Art.  3. 

3  Elucid.  loc.  cit.  D  :  Erit  judicium  in  valle  Josaphat  ?  M.  Yallis  Josa- 
phat  dicitur  vallis  judicii.  Yallis  est  semper  juxta  montem.  Yallis  est  hie 
mundus,  mons  est  coelum.  •  In  valle  ergo  fit  judicium,  i.  e.  in  isto  mundo, 
scilicet  in  isto  aere,  ubi  justi  ad  dexteram  Christi  ut  oves  statuentur,  impii 
autem  ut  hoedi  ad  sinistram  ponentur.  Comp.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  88, 
Art.  4. 

3  Thus  Thomas  Aquinas  was  at  a  loss  to  account  for  what  is  said  concern¬ 
ing  the  sun  and  the  moon  being  darkened  (Matt.  xxiv.  29),  inasmuch  as  the 
coming  of  Christ  will  be  accompanied  by  the  fullest  effusion  of  light,  loc. 
cit.Qu.  73,  Art.  2  :  Dicendum,  quod,  si  loquamur  de  sole  et  luna,  quantum  ad 
ipsum  momentum  adventus  Christi,  sic  non  est  credibile  quod  obscurabuntur 

sui  luminis  privatione,  quia  totus  mundus  innovabitur  Christo  veniente . 

Si  autem  loquamur  de  eis  secundum  tempus  propinquum  ante  judicium,  sic 
esse  poterit,  quod  sol  et  Inna  et  alia  coeli  luminaria,  sui  luminis  privatione 
obscurabuntur,  vel  diversis  temporibus,  vel  simul,  divina  virtute  faciente  ad 
hominum  terrorem. 

4  Ibid :  Qu.  88,  Art.  2,  conclusio. 


126 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


6  In  tne  work  entitled  Elucidarium,  four  classes  are  distinguished  (instead 
of  two  as  was  usual — viz.  the  blessed  and  the  damned),  c.  71  :  Unus  ordo 
est  perfectorum ,  cum  Deo  judicantium  ;  alter  justorum,  qui  per  judicium  sal- 
vantur ;  tertius  impiorum  sine  judicio  pereuntium  ;  quartos  malorum,  qui  per 
judicium  damnantur. . .  .Disc.  Qui  sunt  qui  judicant?  Mag .  Apostoli,  Mar- 
tyres,  Confessores,  Monachi ,  Yirgines.  D.  Quomodo  judicabunt  justos? 
M.  Monstrabunt  eos  suam  doctrinam  et  sua  exempla  fuisse  imitatos,  et  ideo 
regno  dignos.  Peter  Lombard ,  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xlvii.  B.  :  Non  autem  solus 
Christus  judicabit,  sed  et  sancti  cum  eo  judicabunt  nationes. . .  .Judicabunt 
vero  non  modo  cooperatione,  sed  etiam  auctoritate  et  potestate.  Compare 
Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  89,  where  he  examines  the  question,  whether  the 
righteous  will  take  part  in  the  judgment  of  the  world  merely  as  having 
places  of  honor  (assessorie),  or  in  reality.  As  the  former  would  be  too  little, 
we  may  assume  that  they  will  judge  in  reality,  provided  they  do  so  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  divine  will,  but  not  propria  auctoritate.  On  the  ques¬ 
tion,  whether  the  angels  will  also  take  part  in  the  judgment,  see  Peter 
Lombard ,  1.  c.  Litt.  C.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Art.  8. 

6  See  Mosheim ,  p.  157  :  Dicunt  se  credere,  quod  judicium  extremum  non 
sit  futurum,  sed  quod  tunc  est  judicium  hominis  solum,  cum  moritur. 


§  206. 

PURGATORY. 

From  the  time  of  Gregory  the  Great,  the  doctrine  of  a  purifying 
fire,  through  which  the  souls  have  to  pass  after  death,  was  more 
generally  adopted.  The  belief  in  it  was  strengthened  by  facts  fur¬ 
nished  by  legends.1  Missionaries  carried  this  notion,  already  de¬ 
veloped  and  complete,  to  the  nations  which  were  newly  converted  ;a 
and  the  writers  of  the  present  age,  the  scholastics  as  well  as  poets 
and  orators,  gave  the  fullest  description  of  it.  Many  believed  in 
the  real  existence  of  purgatory  as  a  material  fire,3  which,  however, 
in  the  absence  of  a  body  susceptible  of  physical  sufferings,  torments 
the  lost  souls  in  an  ideal  manner  (by  means  of  the  conception  of 
suffering).4  Even  some  who  leaned  to  mysticism,  such  as  Bona - 
ventura  and  Gerson ,B  maintained  the  reality  of  that  fire.  But  the 
practical  consequences  of  the  doctrine  in  question  were  highly  per¬ 
nicious,  since  it  gave  rise  to  the  notion,  that  souls  might  be  relieved 
from  their  pains,  or  even  released  from  their  state  of  suffering,  sooner 
than  would  otherwise  have  been  the  case,  by  means  of  the  inter¬ 
cessory  prayers  and  good  works  of  the  living,  and  especially  by 
means  of  the  masses  for  the  dead  (missse  pro  requie  defunctorum).6 
Inasmuch  as  these  masses  and  ecclesiastical  indulgences  were  paid 
for,  the  question  was  started,  whether  the  rich  were  not,  in  this  re¬ 
spect,  more  privileged  than  the  poor ;  to  which  Peter  Lombard 


§  206.  PURGATORY. 


127 


rejffied  in  the  affirmative.7  Therefore,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
increasing  avarice  and  injustice  of  the  clergy8  should  have  induced 
the  Cathari  and  Waldenses,9  as  well  as  Wy cliff e™  to  combat  the 
doctrine  in  question  as  a  most  dangerous  one.  It  never  met  with 
the  full  approbation  of  the  Greek  Church.11  On  the  other  hand, 
John  Wessel  endeavored  to  divest  it  of  its  pernicious  consequences^ 
by  regarding  the  fire  as  a  spiritual  fire  of  love,  which  purifies  the 
soul  from  its  remaining  dross,  and  consists  in  the  longing  after 
union  with  God.  Accordingly,  it  is  not  so  much  a  punishment,  as 
the  commencement  of  that  blessedness,  which  God  alone  has  the 
power  of  bringing  to  perfection.12 

1  Bede ,  Hist.  Eccles.  Gent.  Anglor.  L.  iii.  c.  19,  v.  c.  13.  Schroc/ch ,  xx. 
p.  185. 

2  Bonifacius ,  Ep.  xxi.  c.  29.  ad  Serrar,  quoted  by  Schrockh ,  loc.  cit. 
On  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  as  propounded  by  St.  Patrick,  the  apostle 
of  Ireland  (according  to  the  account  of  Matthew  Paris),  see  Schrockh ,  xvi. 
p.  229. 

3  The  author  of  the  work  entitled  Elucidarium,  expresses  himself  still 
more  indefinitely  :  c.  61  :  Post  mortem  vero  purgatio  erit  aut  nimius  calor 
ignis,  aut  magnus  rigor  frigoris,  aut  aliud  quodlibet  genus  poenarum,  de 
quibus  tamen  minimum  majus  est,  quam  maximum  quod  in  hac  vita  ex- 
cogitari  potest. — Hugo  of  St.  Victor ,  De  Sacram.  L.  ii.  P.  xvi.  c.  4  :  Est 
autem  alia  poena  post  mortem,  quae  purgatoria  dicitur.  In  qua  qui  ab  hac 
vita  cum  quibusdam  culpis,  justi  tamen  et  ad  vitam  prsedestinati  exierunt, 
ad  tern  pus  cruciantur,  ut  purgentur.  The  language  of  Thomas  Aquinas ,  is 
more  decided,  Qu.  7 0,  Art.  3,  Conch:  Respondeo :  Dicendum,  quod  ignis 
inferni*  non  sit  metaphorice  dictus,  nec  ignis  imaginarius,  sed  verus  ignis 
corporeus,  etc.  He  thought,  however,  that  all  men  do  not  go  to  purgatory, 
but  only  those  who  require  it.  The  truly  pious  go  at  once  to  heaven,  the 
decidedly  wicked  go  at  once  to  hell ;  see  Qu.  69,  Art.  2. 

4  Compare  Thomas  Aquinas ,  1.  c.  :  Alii  dixerunt,  quod  quamvis  ignis 
corporeus  non  possit  animam  exurere,  tamen  anima  appreliendit  ipsum  ut 

.  nocivum  sibi,  et  ad  talem  apprehensionem  afficitur  timore  et  dolore.  But 
this  notion  did  not  satisfy  him  fully.  Comp.  Cramer ,  vii.  p.  773-75. 

6  Bonav.  Comp.  Theol.  Yerit.  vii.  2.  (quoted  by  Klee,  ii.  p.  333.)  comp. 
Schrockh ,  xxix.  p.  219. — Concerning  the  views  of  Gerson  (according  to 
Serrno  ii.  De  Defunctis,  T.  iii.  p.  1558),  see  Schrockh ,  xxxiv.  p.  293. 

6  Elucidar.  c.  61 :  Dum  ibi  sunt  positi,  apparent  eis  Angeli  vel  alii  Sancti, 
in  quorum  honore  aliquid  egerunt  in  hac  vita,  et  aut  auram  aut  suavem 
odorem  aut  aliquod  solamen  eis  impendunt,  usque  dum  liberati  introibunt 
in  illam  aulam,  quae  non  recipit  ullam  maculam.  Peter  Lombard,  Lib.  iv. 
Dist.  xlv.  B.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  71,  Art.  1.  In  his  opinion,  intercessory 
prayers  (opera  suffragii)  do  not  avail  per  viam  meriti,  but  per  viam  ora- 
tionis. — He  expressed  himself  very  cautiously  Art.  2,  Conch  :  Respondeo : 
Dicendum,  quod  charitas,  quae  est  vinculum  ecclesiae  membra  uniens,  non 

*  By  wlncn  we  are  to  understand  the  fire  of  purgatory,  as  the  context  shows. 


128 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


solum  ad  vivos  se  extendit,  sed  etiam  ad  mortuos,  qui  in  charitate  decedunt. 

. . .  .Similiter  etiam  mortui  in  memoriis  hominum  viventium  vivunt,  et  idee 
intentio  viventium  ad  eos  dirigi  potest,  et  sic  suffragia  vivorum  mortuis  duplici- 
ter  prosunt,  sicut  et  vivis,  et  propter  charitatis  unionem,  et  propter  intentionem 
in  eos  directam  :  non  tamen  sic  eis  valere  credenda  sunt  vivorum  suffragia,  ut 
status  eorum  mutetur  de  miseria  ad  felicitatem  vel  e  converso  :  sed  valent  ad 
diminutionem poence  vel  aliquid  hujusmodi,  quod  statum  mortui  non  transmutat. 
Comp.  Art.  6  :  Respondeo :  Dicendum,  quod  poena  purgatorii  est  in  supple- 
mentum  satisfactionis,  quae  non  fuerat  plene  in  corpore  consummata,  et  ideo, 
quia  opera  unius  possunt  valere  alteri  ad  satisfactionem,  sive  vivus  sive  mor- 
tuus  fuerit,  non  est  dubium,  quin  suffragia  per  vivos  facta,  existentibus  in 
purgatorio  prosint.  Compare  Art.  10  concerning  Indulgences.  They  are 
useful  to  the  souls  in  purgatory  indirecte,  but  not  directe.  Respecting  the 
festival  founded  on  this  doctrine,  which  was  first  instituted  in  Clugny,  a.  d. 
993,  and  was  afterwards  adopted  by  the  whole  Western  Church  (All-Souls, 
Nov.  2d.)  see  Sigebert  Gemblacens.  ad  annum  998.  Gieseler ,  ii.  §  33, 
note  15. 

7  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xlv.  D. :  Solet  moveri  quaestio  de  duobus,  uno  divite, 
altero  paupere,  pariter  sed  mediocriter  bonis,  qui  praedictis  suffragiis  indigent, 
et  meruerunt  pariter  post  mortem  juvari :  pro  altero  vero,  i.  e.  pro  divite, 
speciales  et  communes  hunt  orationes,  multaeque  eleemosynarum  largitiones  ; 
pro  paupere  vero  non  hunt  nisi  communes  largitiones  et  orationes.  Quaeri- 
tur  ergo,  an  tantum  juvetur  pauper  paucioribus  subsidiis,  quantum  dives 
amplioribus  ?  Si  non  pariter  juvatur,  non  ei  redditur  secundum  merita. 
Meruit  enim  pariter  juvari,  quia  pariter  boni  extiterunt.  Si  vero  tantum 
suffragii  consequitur  pauper,  quantum  dives ;  quid  contulerunt  diviti  ilia 
specialiter  pro  eo  facta?  Sane  dici  potest,  non  ei  magis  valuisse  generalia  et 
specialia,  quam  pauperi  sola  generalia  suffragia.  Et  tamen  profuerunt  diviti 
specialia,  non  quidem  ad  aliud  vel  majus  aliquid,  sed  ad  idem,  ad  quod  gen¬ 
eralia,  ut  ex  pluribus  et  diversis  causis  unum  perciperetur  emolumentum. 
Potest  tamen  dici  aliter ,  ilia  plura  subsidia  contulisse  diviti  celeriorem  ab- 
solutionem ,  non  pleniorem.  [Comp.  Neander ,  Hist.  Dogm.  594.] 

8  See  the  works  on  ecclesiastical  history.  This  superstition  was  also  com¬ 
bated  by  the  friar  Berthold.  See  Kling ,  p.  396. 

9  Moneta ,  1.  iv.  c.  9,  §  2 :  Dicit  ecclesia  purgatorium  esse  post  hanc  vitam 
animabus,  quse  de  hoc  mundo  migraverunt  inchoata  condigna  poenitentia,  sed 
nondum  perfecta.  Omnes  autem  haeretici,  tarn  Cathari,  quam  Pauperes 
Lugdunenses,  a  quodam  qui  dicebatur  Valdisius  derivati,  hoc  negant.  The 
Beguines  also  denied,  quod  non  est  infernus, nec  purgatorium;  see  Moslieim , 
p.  257.  On  the  rejection  of  purgatory  by  the  Waldenses,  see  Dieckhoff’s 
Waldenser,  205.  Stephen  de  Borbone  says  that  they  said :  Non  esse  poenam 
purgatorii  nisi  in  prsesenti. 

10  Schrbclck  Kirchengesch.  xxxiv.  p.  444.  The  Husites  (Bohemian 
Brethren)  also  questioned  the  reality  of  purgatory  ;  ibid.  pp.  753,  754. 

11  Nevertheless  the  Greek  Church  was  compelled,  by  the  Council  of 
Florence  (a.  d.  1439),  to  make  some  concessions.  See  Mansi ,  T.  xxxi.  Col. 
1029.  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  pp.  313,  314.  [The  Synod  declared: 

Eav  ol  dhrjO&g  [leravorjaavreg  anoOdvovoiv  ev  rrj  rov  Oeov  dyd^rrjy  rp\v 


§  207.  The  Sleep  of  the  Soul. 


129 


rdlg  a%LOig  rrjg  peravoiag  napuoZg  luavortoigaai  rrepl  tmv  ijpaprTjiievGj v 
dpov  nai  rjpeXrjpeviov  (in  the  Latin  copy — de  commissis  et  omissis),  rd( ; 
tovtgiv  ipvxag  naOaprutaZc;  Tipuplcug  KaOalpeoOai  (pcenis  purgatoriis  pur- 
gari)  pera  davarov ,  etc.  The  suffrages  of  the  faithful,  masses,  etc.,  may 
avail  for  their  benefit.]  Therefore  Leo  Allatius  asserted,  that  the  Eastern 
and  Western  Churches  agreed  in  this  point,  in  his  De  Ecclesiae  Occiden¬ 
tals  et  Orientalis  perpetua  in  Dogmate  de  Purgatorio  Concessione.  Rom. 
1655.  4°. 

12  De  Purgatorio,  quis  et  qualis  sit  ignis  purgatorius  in  the  edition  of 
Groningen,  p.  826,  ss.,  quoted  by  Ullmann ,  Joh.  Wessel,  p.  363,  ss. 

On  the  locality  of  Purgatory,  see  §  208. 

% 

§  207. 

THE  SLEEP  OF  THE  SOUL. 

The  doctrine  of  purgatory  had  its  origin  in  the  necessity  which 
men  felt  of  supposing  the  existence  of  a  place,  where  the  soul, 
separated  from  the  body,  might  dwell,  until  its  reunion  with  it. 
The  assumption  of  the  possibility  of  the  soul’s  deliverance  from 
this  intermediate  state,  prior  to  the  general  resurrection,  gave  rise 
to  new  difficulties,  inasmuch  as  it  became  necessary  to  fill  up  the 
interval  between  those  two  moments  of  time.  This  led  to  a  revival 
of  the  earlier  notion  of  a  death  of  the  soul  (which  had  been  pro¬ 
pounded  by  the  false  teachers  of  Arabia  whom  Origen  combated), 
though  under  the  milder  form  of  a  sleep  of  the  soul  (Psychopanny- 
chy.)1  It  is,  however,  uncertain,  whether  Pope  John  XXII.,  as  is 
asserted,  really  adopted  this  opinion.2  At  all  events,  his  views  were 
opposed  by  the  professors  of  the  university  of  Paris,3  and  disap¬ 
proved  of  by  Pope  Benedict  XII.4 

1  On  the  Thnetopsychites,  see  Vol.  i.  §  76,  note  8.  Respecting  the 
notion  of  a  sleep  of  the  soul  (which  was  rejected  by  Tertullian),  see  ibid, 
p.  217. 

2  The  idea  of  a  sleep  of  the  soul  was  by  no  means  distinctly  expressed 
in  those  words  of  his  which  were  thought  objectionable  (they  occur  in  a 
sermon  preached  on  the  first  Sunday  in  Advent  1331)  ;  on  the  contrary, 
all  that  is  there  said  is,  quod  animse  decedentium  in  gratia  non  videant  Deum 
per  essentiam,  nec  sint  perfecte  beatse,  nisi  post  resumptionem  corporis.— 
This  opinion  perfectly  agreed  with  the  views  of  earlier  theologians.  Comp. 
Vol.  i.  §  77.  But  from  the  fifth  century  on,  it  wras  abandoned  and  con¬ 
demned,  A.  d.  1240,  by  the  University  of  Paris.  D'Argentre,  Collectio 
Judiciorum  de  novis  Erroribus,  i.  186.  Gieseler ,  iii.  p.  54,  ss. 

3  See  d'  Arg  entree  Collectio  Judic.  T.  i.  p.  316,  ss.  Bulceus  T.  iv.  p.  235. 
Gieseler ,  loc.  cit.  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  p.  312. 

*  a.  d.  1366,  Jan.  29th.  See  Raynald,  ad  hunc  annum,  Xo.  3. — Gieseler 

9 


130 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


and  Munscher ,  ed.  by  von  Colin,  1.  c.  On  the  pretended  recantation  of  Pope 
John  XXII.  see  Gieseler ,  1.  c.  On  a  picture,  representing  the  state  of  the 
departed,  see  Quandt ,  Reise  ins  mittagliche  Frankreich,  149. 


§  208. 

THE  LOCALITIES  OF  THE  FUTURE  WORLD. 

( Heaven ,  Hell ,  and  Intermediate  State.) 

The  scholastics  endeavoured  to  draw  into  the  sphere  of  their  re¬ 
searches,  not  only  the  bright  regions  of  heaven,  but  also  the  dark 
abodes  of  hell.  Thus,  heaven  was  divided  into  three  parts — viz.  the 
visible  heavens  (the  firmament),  the  spiritual  heaven,  where  saints 
and  angels  dwell,  and  the  intellectual  heaven,  where  the  blessed 
enjoy  the  immediate  vision  of  the  Triune  God.1  Different  depart¬ 
ments  (receptacula)  were  also  ascribed  to  hell.3  These  were,  1.  Hell, 
properly  so  called,  where  the  devils  and  the  damned  are  confined  ;8 
2.  Those  subterranean  regions  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  inter¬ 
mediate  states  between  heaven  and  hell,  and  which  are  again  sub¬ 
divided  into  (a),  Purgatory,  which  lies  nearest  to  hell  ;4  (5),  The 
Limbus  Infantum  (puerorhm),  where  those  children  remain  who  die 
unbaptized  (c),  The  Limbus  Patrum,  the  abode  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  saints,  the  place  to  which  Christ  went  to  preach  redemp¬ 
tion  to  the  souls  in  prison.  The  Limbus  last  mentioned  was  also 
called  Abraham's  bosom  ;  different  opinions  obtained  concerning  its 
relation  of  proximity  to  heaven  and  hell.6  These  positions  were 
rejected  by  the  mystics,  who  were  inclined  to  more  spiritual  views, 
and  assigned  to  subjective  states  what  the  scholastics  fixed  in  ex¬ 
ternal  localities.7 

1  Elucidarium  c.  3. — Paradise  was  also  supposed  to  be  there.  Comp.  c. 
50,  and  note  7. 

2  Peter  Lombard ,  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xlv.  A.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  69,  Art. 
1,  ss.  Cramer ,  vii.  p.  771-73. 

3  Elucidar.  c.  62,  D. :  Quid  est  infernus?  vel  ubi?  M.  Duo  sunt  inferni, 
superior  et  inferior.  Superior  infima  pars  hujus  mundi,  quae  plena  est  poenis, 
nam  hie  exundat  nimius  aestus,  magnum  frigus,  etc.  Inferior  vero  est  locus 

spiritualis,  ubi  ignis  inextinguibilis . qui  sub  terra  dicitur  esse,  ut,  sicut 

corpora  peccantium  terra  cooperiuntur,  ita  animae  peccantium  sub  terra  in 
inferno  sepeliantur.* 

*  The  term  “  Holle,”  (hell)  had  primarily  the  more  comprehensive  signification  of  the 
netherworld  (whence  the  phrase  in  the  Apostles’  Creed,  “  he  descended  into  hell”).  It 
was  not  till  later  (from  the  thirteenth  century)  that  the  word  was  used  to  denote  the  place 
of  torment.  Comp.  Grimm's  deutsche  Mytliologie,  p.  462. — “  The  Christians  substituted,  in 
place  of  the  heathenish  notion  of  a  pale  and  gloomy  hell ,  that  of  a  pool  filled  with  flames  and 


§  208.  Heaven,  Hell,  and  Intermediate  State. 


131 


4  See  above  §  206. 

6  According  to  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  69,  Art.  6,  the  limbus  puerorum  is 
distinguished  from  the  limbus  patrura,  secundum  qualitatem  prsemii  vcl 
poense,  because  children  who  die  without  baptism  have  not  that  hope  of 
eternal  salvation  which  the  fathers  had  prior  to  the  manifestation  of  Christ. 
As  regards  the  site  (situs),  it  is'  probable  that  the  limbus  puerorum  lies 
nearer  to  hell  than  the  limbus  patrum.  Others,  however,  identified  the  one 
with  the  other.  Thus  friar  JBerthold  says  (quoted  by  Kling,  p.  443)  :  “  If 
your  children  die  without  baptism,  or  are  baptised  improperly,  they  can 
never  enter  into  the  heavenly  joys.  They  go,  together  with  the  Jewish  and 
Gentile  children,  who  are  still  without  belief,  to  the  limbus  to  which  those 
of  old  went.  There  they  do  not  suffer  any  pain,  except  this,  that  they  do 
not  go  to  heaven.”  Comp.  p.  210.  Those  children  who  are  baptised,  ride 
in  the  little  carriage  (the  constellation  of  the  Little  Bear)  straight  to  heaven 
(paradise).  But  if  the  child  happened  to  be  baptised  improperly,  one  of  the 
wheels  breaks,  and  the  child  is  lost.  See  ibid.  pp.  169,  170. 

8  Thomas  Aquinas  treated  of  this  point  very  fully,  1.  c.  Art.  4.  He  made 
a  distinction  between  the  state  'prior  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  that  poste¬ 
rior  to  that  event.  Quia  ante  Christi  adventum  Sanctorum  requies  habebat 
defectum  requiei  adjunctum,  dicebatur  idem  infernus  et  sinus  Abrahse,  unde 
ibi  non  videbatur  Deus.  Sed  quia  post  Christi  adventum  Sanctorum  requies 
est  completa,  cum  Deum  videant,  talis  requies  dicitur  sinus  Abrahse,  et  nullo 
modo  infernus.  Et  ad  hunc  sinum  Abrahse  ecclesia  orat  fideles  perduci. 
Comp.  Elucidar.  64,  D. :  In  quo  inferno  erant  justi  ante  adventum  Christi  ? 
M.  In  superiori,  in  quodam  loco  juncto  inferiori,  in  quo  poterant  alterutrum 
conspicere.  Qui  erant  ibi,  quamvis  carerent  supplicio,  videbatur  eis  esse  in 
inferno,  cum  essent  separati  a  regno.  Illis  autem,  qui  erant  in  inferiori  in¬ 
ferno,  videbatur,  quod  illi,  qui  erant  in  illo  inferno  juncto  inferiori,  erant  in 
refrigerio  paradisi,  unde  et  dives  rogabat  a  Lazaro,  guttam  super  se  stillari. 
D.  Quam  poenam  habebant  illi,  qui  erant  in  illo  inferno  juncto  inferiori  ?  M. 
Quasdam  tenebras  tantum,  unde  dicitur :  “  Habitantibus  in  regione  umbrae 
mortis ,  lux  orta  est  eis."  Quidam  ex  eis  erant  in  quibusdam  poenis.  Venit 
ergo  Dominus  ad  infernum  superiorem  nascendo,  ut  redimeret  captivos  a 
^  tyranno,  ut  dicitur  :  “  Dices  his ,  qui  vincti  sunt :  Exite ,  et  his  qui  in  tenebris 
sunt :  Releva, mini."  Yinctos  vocat,  qui  erant  in  poenis,  alios  vero  in  tenebris, 
quos  omnes  absolvit  et  in  gloriam  duxit  res  glorise.  Comp.  Dante,  Divina 
Commedia,  Hell ,  4,  comp.  31,  ss. 

7  The  author  of  the  work  entitled  Elucidarium  expressed  himself  as  fol¬ 
lows,  C.  59  :  Paradisus  non  est  locus  corporalis,  quia  spiritus  non  habitant  in 
locis ;  sed  est  spiritualis  mansio  beatorum,  quam  seterna  sapientia  perfecit  in 
initio,  et  est  intellectual!  coelo  [comp,  note  1],  ubi  ipsa  divinitas,  qualis  est, 
ab  eis  facie  ad  faciem  contuetur.  The  language  of  Tauler  (Predigten,  i.  pp. 

291,  292,)  was  still  more  spiritualising: . Christ  granted  to  the  thief 

on  the  cross  “to  behold  himself,  his  divine  countenance  and  nature,  which  is 

brimstone,  pitchdark ,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  bright  lilce  fire ,  in  which  the  souls  of  the 
damned  are  always  burning .”  Grimm.  1.  c.  p.  464.  On  the  mixture  of  Christian  with 
Gentile  notions,  ibid.  p.  465. 


132 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism 


tlie  true  and  living  paradise  of  all  pleasures.  To  behold  the  glory  of  God 
is  what  constitutes  paradise.”* 


§  209. 

THE  STATE  OF  THE  BLESSED  AND  THE  DAMNED. 

Both  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  its  degree  of  culture,  were 
reflected  in  the  representations  and  descriptions  of  heaven  and  hell. 
According  to  John  Scotus  Erigena ,  the  personal  spirit  of  man  is 
resolved  into  God,  a  notion  which  he  thought  reconcilable  with 
the  idea  of  self-conscious  continuance.1  The  pantheistic  sects  of 
the  middle  ages  went  so  far  as  to  destroy  all  individuality,  and 
to  deny  the  future  life.2  The  scholastics,  whose  principal  happiness 
even  in  this  world  consisted  in  making  the  most  subtile  distinc¬ 
tions,  supposed  that  the  greater  acuteness  of  the  intellectual  powers 
would  constitute  the  especial  blessedness  of  heaven  ;  Duns  Scotus 
started  such  questions  as,  whether  the  blessed  would  perceive  the 
quidditates  of  things,  etc.3  The  paradisaical  enjoyments  of  refined 
senses  were  not  quite  excluded,  though  it  was  admitted,  that  the 
highest  and  real  pleasures  would  consist  principally  in  communion 
with  God,  and  the  mutual  fellowship  of  the  saints.4  Thomas 
Aquinas  supposed  different  gifts  (dotes)  of  blessedness.  In  addi¬ 
tion  to  the  corona  aurea ,  which  is  given  to  all  the  blessed,  there  are 
particular  aureolce  for  martyrs  and  saints,  for  monks  and  nuns.6 
The  mystics  also  represented  the  world  to  come  in  bright  colors.6 
But  the  age  was  especially  inventive  in  devising  all  sorts  of  ingenious 
punishments  which  the  wicked  would  have  to  suffer  in  hell,  after 
the  refined  cruelty  of  the  criminal  processes  of  the  inquisition.7 
According  to  Thomas  Aquinas ,  the  torments  of  the  damned  consist 
in  useless  repentance.8  They  can  neither  change  for  the  better  nor 
for  the  worse.9  They  hate  God  and  curse  the  state  of  the  blessed.10 
But  the  latter  are  not  disturbed  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  happiness 
by  any  feeling  of  compassion.11  The  views  of  John  Scotus  Erigena 
differed  from  the  popular  notion  in  making  the  consciousness  of  sin 
itself,  and  of  its  impotence,  to  constitute  the  principal  misery  of 
the  damned.12  Master  Eckart  declared  it  to  be  a  spiritual  non¬ 
entity,13  an  expression  from  which  the  Beghards  drew  the  hasty  in¬ 
ference  that  hell  had  no  existence.14 

1  De  Div.  Nat.  v.  8,  p.  282  :  Prima  igitur  humanae  naturae  reversio  est, 
quando  corpus  solvitur,  et  in  quatuor  elementa  sensibilis  mundi,  ex  quibus  com- 
positum  est,  revocatur.  Secunda  in  resurrectione  implebitur,  quando  unus- 

*  On  the  relation  between  the  Christian  notions  of  paradise  commonly  entertained, 
and  the  earlier  ideas  of  heathen  nations  (the  Walhalla),  see  Grimm ,  deutsche  Mythologie, 
p.  475. 


§  209.  The  State  of  the  Blessed  and  the  Damned.  133 


quisque  suum  proprium  corpus  ex  communione  quatuor  elementorum  recipiet. 
Tertia,  quando  corpus  in  spiritum  mutabitur.  Quarta,  quando  spiritus  et, 
ut  apertius  dicam,  tota  bominis  natura  in  primordiales  causas  revertetur, 
quae  sunt  semper  et  incommutabiliter  in  Deo.  Quinta,  quando  ipsa  natura 
cum  suis  causis  movebitur  in  Deum,  sicut  aer  movetur  in  lucem.  Erit  enim 

Deus  omnia  in  omnibus:  quando  nihil  erit  nisi  solus  Deus . Mutatio 

itaque  humanae  naturae  in  Deum,  non  in  substantiae  interitu  aestimanda  est, 
sed  in  pristinum  statum,  quem  praevaricando  perdiderat,  mirabilis  atque  in- 

efFabilis  reversio.  Pag.  234  : . Inferiora  vero  a  superioribus  naturaliter 

attrahuntur  et  absorbentur,  non  ut  non  sint,  sed  ut  in  eis  plus  salventur  et 
subsistant  et  unum  sint.  Nam  neque  aer  suam  perdit  substantiam,  cum 
totus  in  solare  lumen  convertitur :  in  tantum,  ut  nihil  in  eo  appareat  nisi  lux, 
cum  aliud  sit  lux,  aliud  aer :  lux  tamen  praevalet  in  aere,  ut  sola  videatur 
esse.  Ferrum  aut  aliud  aliquod  metallum  in  igne  liquefactum,  in  ignem 
converti  videtur,  ut  ignis  purus  videatur  esse,  salva  metalli  substantia  per- 
manente.  Eadem  ratione  existimo  corporalem  substantiam  in  animam  esse 
transiturum  :  non  ut  pereat  quod  sit,  sed  ut  in  meliori  essentia  salva  sit. 
Similiter  de  ipsa  anima  intelligendum,  quod  ita  in  intellectum  movebitur,  ut 
in  eo  pulchrior  Deoque  similior  conservetur.  Nie  aliter  dixerim  de  transitu, 
ut  non  adhuc  dicam  omnium,  sed  rationabilium  substantiarum  in  Deum,  in 
quo  cuncta  finem  positura  sunt,  et  unum  erunt. — As  the  many  separate  lights 
( e.g .  in  a  church)  form  together  one  sea  of  light ,  though  every  single  light 
may  be  removed,  as  a  part  may  be  taken  from  the  whole ;  and  as  many 
voices  form  together  one  chorus,  without  losing  their  individuality  in  one 
confused  mass  of  sounds,  so  are  souls  related  to  God.  Comp.  cap.  12  and 
13,  p.  236. 

2  Thus  Amalrich  of  Sena  taught :  He  who  possesses  the  knowledge  of 
God,  has  paradise  within  himself ;  but  he  who  commits  a  mortal  sin,  has 
hell  in  his  own  heart,  as  a  man  has  a  bad  tooth  in  his  mouth.  Compare 
Engelhardt ,  p.  255.  Concerning  his  followers  it  is  said :  Item  seme- 
tipsos  jam  resuscitatos  asserebant,  fidem  et  spem  ab  eorum  cordibus  ex- 
cludebant,  se  soli  scientiae  mentientes  subjacere  ;  ibid.  p.  259.  Comp.  p.  260 : 
Dixit  etiam  (Amalricus),  quod  Deus  ideo  dicitur  finis  omnium,  quia  omnia 
reversura  sunt  in  ipsum,  ut  in  Deo  immutabiliter  quiescant,  et  unum  in- 
dividuum  atque  incommutabile  in  eo  permanebunt ;  et  sicut  alterius  naturae 
non  est  Abraham,  alterius  Isaak,  sed  unius  atque  ejusdem,  sic  dixit  omnia 
esse  unum  et  omnia  esse  Deum.  The  Beguines  made  the  same  assertions. 
Comp.  §  204,  note  2. 

3  John  Scotus  Erigena ,  v.  c.  31,  ss.  : — Peter  Lombard,  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  49, 
A. :  Habere  ergo  vitam,  est  videre  vitam,  cognoscere  Deum  in  specie  (accord¬ 
ing  to  John  xvii.). — Elucid.  79 :  His  (beatis)  Salomonis  sapientia  esset 
magna  insipientia.  Porro  ipsi  omni  sapientia  affluunt,  omnem  scientiam  de 
ipso  fonte  sapientiae  Dei  hauriunt.  Omnia  quippe  praeterita,  praesentia,  et  si 
qua  futura  sunt,  perfecte  sciunt.  Omnium  omnino  hominum,  sive  in  coelo, 
sive  in  inferno,  nomina,  genera,  opera  bona  vel  mala  unquam  ab  eis  gesta 
norunt,  et  nihil  est  quod  eos  lateat,  cum  in  sole  justitiae  pariter  videant 
omnia. —  Thom.  Aquin.,  Qu.  92,  Art.  1,  2,  3. — Dans  Scotus ,  quoted  by 
Cramer ,  vii.  pp.  786,  787. 


134 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


4  Elucid.  11  :  Salomonis  deliciae  essent  eis  miseriae.  0  qualis  est  justo- 
rum  voluptas,  qnibus  ipse  Dens  fons  omnium  bonorum  est  insatiabilis  satians 
satietas.  Duse  sunt  beatitudines,  una  minor  Paradisi,  altera  major  coelestis 
regni.  (We  have  no  idea  of  it,  and  can  infer  the  notion  of  happiness  only 

in  a  negative  way  from  that  of  unhappiness.) . Sicut  ferrum  alicujus 

capiti  si  esset  infixum  et  sic  candens  per  omnia  membra  transiret,  sicut  ille 
dolorem  haberet,  ita  ipsi  per  contrarium  modum  in  omnibus  membris  suis 

interius  et  exterius  voluptatem  habent . 0  qualem  voluptatem  visus  ipsi 

habebunt,  qui  ita  clausis  sicut  apertis  oculis  videbunt . O  qualis  volup¬ 

tas  auditus  illorum,  quibus  incessanter  sonent  harmonise  coelorum  et  con- 
centus  Angelorum,  dulcisona  organa  omnium  Sanctorum.  Olfactio  qualis, 
ubi  suavissimum  odoremde  ipso  suavitatis  fonte  haurient,  et  odorem  de  Angelis 
et  omnibus  Sanctis  percipient.  Eia  qualis  voluptas  gustus,  ubi  epulantur  et 
exultant  in  conspectu  Dei,  et,  cum  apparuerit  gloria  Dei,  saturabuntur  et  ab 
ubertate  domus  ejus  inebriabuntur  (Ps.  lxxvi.  Ps.  xvi.  Ps.  xxxv).  Voluptas 
tactus  qualis,  ubi  omnia  aspera  et  dura  aberunt,  et  omnia  blanda  et  suavia 
arridebunt. — Nor  will  the  recollection  of  sins  formerly  committed,  but  now 
expiated,  disturb  the  enjoyment  of  heavenly  bliss.  Cap.  79.  Concerning 
the  blessedness  arising  from  the  fellowship  of  the  saints,  see  ibidem  :  Nihil 
plus  cupient,  quam  habebunt,  et  nihil  plus  potest  adjici  gaudio  eorum. 
Quod  enim  quisque  in  se  non  habuerit,  in  altero  habebit,  ut.  v.  g.  Petrus  in 
Joanne,  gloriam  habebit  virginitatis,  Joannes  in  Petro  gloriam  passionis.  Et 
ita  gloria  uniuscujusque  erit  omnium,  et  gloria  omnium  uniuscujusque  erit. 

. 0  Deus,  quale  gaudium  habebunt,  qui  Patrem  in  Filio,  et  Verbum  in 

Patre,  et  Spiritus  Sancti  charitatem  in  utroque,  sicuti  est,  facie  ad  faciem 
semper  videbunt.  Gaudium  habebunt  de  consortio  Angelorum,  gaudium  de 
contubernio  omnium  Sanctorum. 

5  According  to  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  95,  Art.  2,  the  following  distinc¬ 
tion  may  be  made  between  heatitudo  and  dos :  Dos  datur  sine  meritis,  sed 
beatitudo  non  datur,  sed  redditur  pro  meritis.  Praeterea :  beatitudo  est  una 
tantum,  dotes  vero  sunt  plures.  Praeterea  :  beatitudo  inest  homini  secundum 
id  quod  est  potissimum  in  eo,  sed  dos  etiam  in  corpore  ponitur. — According 
to  Art.  5,  there  are  three  dotes:  visio,  quae  tidei,  comprehensio,  quae  spei,  fruitio, 
quae  charitati  responded  On  the  relation  in  which  the  particular  aureolae 
stand  to  the  corona  (aurea),  see  Qu.  96.  Art.  1  :  Praemium  essentiale  hom- 
inis,  quod  est  ejus  beatitudo,  consistit  in  perfecta  conjunctione  animae  ad 
Deum,  in  quantum  eo  perfecte  fruitur,  ut  viso  et  amato  perfecte  :  hoc  autem 
praemium  metaphorice  corona  dicitur  vel  aurea ;  turn  ex  parte  meriti,  quotl 
cum  quadam  pugna  agitur,  turn  etiam  ex  parte  praemii,  per  quod  homo  effici- 
tur  quodammodo  divinitatis  particeps,  et  per  consequens  regiae  potestatis. 

. . Significat  etiam  corona  perfectionem  quandam  ratione  figurae  circu- 

laris,  ut  ex  hoc  etiam  competat  perfectioni  beatorum.  Sed  quia  nihil  potest 
superaddi  essential!,  quin  sit  eo  minus:  ideo  superadditum  praemium  aureola 
nominatur.  Iluic  autem  essentiali  praemio,  quod  aurea  dicitur,  aliquid  super- 
additnr  dupliciter :  uno  modo  ex  conditione  naturae  ejus,  qui  praemiatur, 
sicut  supra  beatitudinem  animae  gloria  corporis  adjungitur,  unde  et  ipsa 

gloria  corporis  interdum  aureola  nominatur . ;  alio  modo  ex  ratione 

operis  meritorii,  etc.  In  Art.  2.  aureola  is  further  distinguished  from  fruc- 


§  209.  The  State  of  the  Blessed  and  the  Damned.  135 


tus  :  Fructus  consistit  in  gaudio  habito  de  dispositione  ipsius  operantis,  au» 
reola  in  gaudio  perfections  operum  (the  one  is  the  subjective  reward,  the 
other  is  the  objective  one).  Compare  the  subsequent  notes. 

*  Suso ,  Yon  der  unmassigen  Freude  des  Ilimmelreichs  (quoted  by  Die - 
penbrock ,  p.  293,  ss.  Wackernagels  Lesebuch,  i.  Sp.  881,  ss.)  :  “Now  arise 
with  me,  I  will  lead  thee  to  contemplation,  and  cause  thee  to  cast  a  look  at 
a  parable.  Behold  !  above  the  ninth  heaven,  which  is  far  more  than  a  hun¬ 
dred  thousand  times  larger  than  our  whole  globe,  there  is  yet  another  heaven, 
which  is  called  coelum  empyreum,  and  has  its  name,  not  from  its  being  a 
fiery  substance,  but  from  the  intense  shining  brightness  which  it  possesses  by 
nature.  It  is  immovable  and  unchangeable,  and  is  the  glorious  court  where 
the  heavenly  hosts  dwell,  and  where  the  evening  star,  and  all  the  children 
of  God,  sing  unceasing  praise  and  adoration.  There  are  the  eternal  thrones, 
surrounded  by  the  incomprehensible  light.,  from  which  the  evil  spirits  were 
cast  out,  and  which  are  now  occupied  by  the  elect.  Behold  the  wonderful 
city  shining  with  pure  gold,  glittering  with  precious  pearls,  inlaid  with  pre¬ 
cious  jewels,  transparent  like  a  crystal,  resplendent  with  red  roses,  white 
lilies,  and  all  sorts  of  living  flowers.  Now  cast  thine  own  eyes  upon  the 
beautiful  heavenly  fields.  Aye !  behold  the  full  delight  of  summer,  the 
meadows  of  the  bright  May,  the  true  valley  of  delight ;  behold  happy  mo¬ 
ments  spent  in  mutual  love,  harps,  viols,  singing,  springing,  dancing,  and 
pleasures  without  end ;  behold  the  fulfilment  of  every  desire,  and  love  with¬ 
out  sorrow,  in  everlasting  security.  And  behold,  round  about  thee,  the  innu¬ 
merable  multitude  of  the  redeemed,  drinking  of  the  fountain  of  living  water 
after  their  hearts’  desire,  and  looking  in  the  pure  and  clear  mirror  of  the  un¬ 
veiled  Deity,  in  which  all  things  are  made  manifest  to  them.  Proceed  fur¬ 
ther,  and  behold  the  sweet  queen  of  the  heavenly  country,  whom  thou  lovest 
with  such  intensity,  occupying  her  throne  with  dignity  and  joy,  elevated 
above  all  the  heavenly  hosts,  surrounded  by  rose-flowers  and  lilies  of  the 
valley.  Behold  her  wonderful  beauty  imparting  joy,  and  delight,  and  glory, 

to  all  the  heavenly  hosts,  etc . behold  the  bright  cherubim  and  their 

company,  receiving  a  bright  emanation  of  the  eternal,  incomprehensible 
light,  and  the  heavenly  principalities  and  powers  enjoying  sweet  repose  in 

me,  and  I  in  them . behold  my  elect  disciples,  and  my  very  best  friends, 

occupying  the  venerable  thrones  of  judgment  in  great  peace  and  honor ; 
behold  the  martyrs  shining  in  their  robes  red  like  roses,  the  confessors  shin¬ 
ing  in  their  splendid  beauty,  the  tender  virgins  shining  in  angelic  purity, 
and  all  the  heavenly  host  enjoying  divine  sweetness  !  Aye,  what  a  company, 
and  what  a  happy  country !”  But  Suso  regards  all  this  as  a  mere  image. 
In  his  opinion,  true  happiness,  “  the  essential  recompense,”  as  distinct  from 
that  which  is  “  accidental,”  consists  in  union  with  God. — P.  296  :  “  Essential 
reward  consists  in  the  union  of  the  soul  with  the  pure  Deity  in  the  beatific 
vision.  For  never  more  can  the  soul  be  in  repose  until  it  is  elevated  above 
all  its  powers  and  possibilities,  and  brought  into  the  very  essence  of  the  per-* 
son,  into  the  natural  simplicity  of  its  essence.  And  in  this  union  and  reac- 
tion  it  finds  its  satisfaction  and  eternal  blessedness ;  the  more  entire  and 
simple  the  outgoing,  the  freer  is  the  upgoing,  the  surer  is  the  entrance  into 
the  wild  waste  and  the  deep  abyss  of  essential  deity,  with  which  it.  is  ab- 


136 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


sorbed,  whelmed  and  united  ;  so  that  it  wills  nothing;  but  what  God  wills 
and  becomes  the  same  that  God  is;  it  becomes  blessed  through  grace; 
as  He  is  blessed  by  nature.”  Much,  however,  as  Suso  exalts  this  “swallow¬ 
ing  up”  of  the  human  spirit  in  the  divine,  he  yet  insists  upon  the  perpetuity 
of  the  individual  consciousness.  “  In  this  absorption  of  the  soul  in  the  deity, 
it  vanishes,  but  not  wholly  ’  it  gains  some  property  of  divinity,  but  it  does 
not  become  essential  God  ;  all  that  happens  to  it  comes  through  grace,  for 
the  soul  is  an  existence,  created  from  nothing,  eternally  loved  and  favored.” 
Schmidt,  ubi  supra,  50  [Diepenbrocic,  227).  Compare  the  dialogues,  there 
cited,  of  Suso  “  with  the  wild  ones,”  which  show  that  Eckart’s  disciples  were 
divided  into  two  classes,  the  one  of  which  adopted  the  pantheistic  conse¬ 
quences  of  his  system,  and  the  other  not ;  Suso  belonged  to  the  latter  class. 

7  Elucidarium  c.  80  :  Ecce,  sicut  isti  amici  Dei  decore  maximo  illustran- 
tur,  ita  illi  maximo  horrore  deturpantur.  Sicut  isti  summa  agilitate  sunt 
alleviati,  ita  illi  summa  pigrititia  praegravati.  Sicut  isti  prsecipuo  robore 
solidati,  ita  illi  sunt  prsecipua  invaletudine  debilitati.  Sicut  isti  augusta 
libertate  potiuntur,  ita  illi  anxia  servitute  deprimuntur.  Sicut  isti  immensa 
voluptate  deliciantur,  ita  illi  immensa  miseria  amaricantur.  Sicut  isti 
egregia  sanitate  vigent,  ita  illi  infinita  infirmitate  deficient.  Sicut  isti  de 
beata  immortalitate  triumphantes  lsetantur,  ita  illi  de  dolenda  sua  diuturni- 
tate  lamentantur.  Sicut  isti  politi  sunt  splendore  sapientise,  ita  illi  obscurati 
sunt  horrore  insipientise.  Si  quid  enim  sciunt,  ad  augmentum  doloris  sciunt. 
Sicut  istos  dulcis  amicita  copulat,  ita  illos  amara  inimicitia  excruciat.  Sicut 
isti  concordem  concordiam  cum  omni  creatura  habentes,  ab  omni  creatura 
glorificantur,  ita  illi,  cum  omni  creatura  discordiam  habentes,  ab  omni  crea¬ 
tura  execrantur.  Sicut  isti  summa  potentia  sublimantur,  ita  illi  summa  im- 

potentia  augustiantur . Sicut  isti  ineffabili  gaudio  jubilantes,  ita  illi 

mcerore  sine  fine  ejulantes,  etc.  .  .  .According  to  Thomas  Aquinas,  Qu.  97, 
Art.  4,  outer  darkness  reigns  in  hell,  and  only  so  much  light  is  admitted  as  is 
sufficient  to  see  that  which  is  to  torment  the  souls.  The  fire  is  (according 
to  Art.  5  and  6)  a  real,  material  fire,  differing  only  in  a  few  points  (but  not 
specifically)  from  terrestrial  fire.  It  is  under  the  surface  of  the  earth,  etc. — 
Gilbert  of  Nogent,  however,  denied  that  the  fire  was  material  (he  died  a.  d. 
1124).  See  Gieseler ,  Dogmengesch.  564.  [Gilbert,  in  his  De  Pignoribus  Sanc¬ 
torum,  lib.  iv.  ca4?  says,  the  punishments  of  hell  consist  in  the  pangs  of  an 
evil  conscience.]  A  full  description  of  the  torments  of  hell  is  given  by 
Dante.  [Dantes  descriptions  are  perhaps  derived  from  the  Elucidarium, 
which  is  printed  among  Anselm’s  works,  but  which  is  not  his ;  it  has  also 
been  ascribed  to  Gilbert  of  Nogent,  The  Elucidarium  was  freely  used  by 
Aquinas.] 

*  Thomas  Aquinas,  Qu.  98,  Art.  2  :  Poenitere  de  peccato,  contingit 
dupliciter.  IJno  modo  per  se,  alio  modo  per  accidens.  Per  se  quidem  de 
peccato  poenitet,  qui  peccatum,  in  quantum  est  peccatum,  abominatur.  Per 
accidens  vero,  qui  illud  odit,  ratione  alicujus  adjuncti,  utpote  poense  vel 
alieujus  hujusmodl  Mali  igitur  non  pcenitebunt,  per  se  loquendo,  de  pec- 
catis,  quia  voluntas  malitise  peccati  in  eis  remanet :  poenitebunt  autem  per 
accidens,  in  quantum  affligentur  de  poena,  quam  pro  peccato  sustinent.  (He 
.seems  to  imply. o,f  .an  attritio,  sine  contritione,) 


§  209.  The  State  of  the  Blessed  and  the  Damned.  137 


9  Loco  citato,  Art.  6  :  Post  diem  judicii  erit  ultima  consummatio  bonorum 
et  malorum,  ita  quod  niliil  erit  addendum  ulterius  de  bono  vel  de  malo. 
Comp.  Peter  Lombard ,  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  50,  A. 

10  Elucidarium,  80  :  Odium  enim  Dei  habent . odium  habent  Angel- 

oruni . odium  habent  omnium  Sanctorum . odium  a  novo  ccelo  et 

a  nova  terra  et  ab  omni  creatura  habent.  Comp.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  1.  c. 
Art.  4  :  Tanta  erit  invidia  in  damnatis,  quod  etiam  propinquorum  glorise  in- 

videbunt,  cum  ipsi  sint  in  summa  miseria . Sed  tamen  minus  invident 

propinquis  quam  aliis,  et  major  esset  eorum  poena,  si  omnes  propinqui  dam- 
narentur  et  alii  salvarentur,  quam  si  aliqui  de  suis  propinquis  salvarentur. 
(He  then  quotes  the  instance  of  Lazarus.) — As  regards  the  hatred  which 
the  lost  feel  towards  God,  comp.  Art.  5.  God  as  such  cannot  be  hated,  but 
ratione  effectuum. 

11  Peter  Lombard ,  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  50,  G.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  94,  Art. 
2,  3.  They  witness  the  sufferings  of  the  damned,  without  being  seen  by 
the  latter.  Peter  Lombard ,  1.  c.  Litt.  E.  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  98,  Art.  9. 

12  De  Div.  Nat.  v.  29,  p.  265  :  diversas  suppliciorum  formas  non  localiter 
in  quadam  parte,  veluti  toto  hujus  visibilis  creaturae,  et  ut  simpliciter  dicam, 
neque  intra  diversitatem  totius  naturae  a  Deo  conditae  futuras  esse  credimus, 
et  neque  nunc  esse,  et  nusquam  et  nunquam,  sed  in  malarum  voluntatum 
corruptarumque  conscientiarum  perversis  motibus,  tardaque  poenitentia  et 
infructuosa,  inque  perversae  potestatis  omnimoda  subversione,  sive  humana 
sive  angelica  creatura.  Comp.  c.  36,  p.  288,  c.  37,  p.  294,  and  some  other 
passages.  Frommuller  (Tlibinger  Zeitschrift,  1830,  part  1,  p.  84,  ss.*) 
Guibert  of  Nogent  entertained  similar  views,  De  Pignoribus  Sanctorum  (in 
Opp.  ed.  d’Achery.  Par.  1651,  fob),  Lib.  c.  14,  p.  363.  Munscher ,  edit.  by 
von  Colin,  p.  96-98. 

13  The  question  has  been  started,  what  that  is  which  burns  in  hell.  The 
masters  generally  say,  it  is  self-will.  But  1  say,  in  truth,  it  is  not  having 
[ Nicht ]  which  constitutes  the  burning  of  hell.  Learn  this  from  a  parable. 
If  you  were  to  take  a  burning  coal,  and  put  it  on  my  hand,  and  I  were  to 
assert  that  the  coal  is  burning  my  hand,  I  should  be  wrong.  But  if  I  be 
asked  what  it  is  that  burns  me,  I  say,  it  is  the  not  having,  i.  e .,  the  coal  has 
something  which  my  hand  has  not.  You  perceive,  then,  that  it  is  the  not 
having  which  burns  me.  But  if  my  hand  had  all  that  which  the  coal  has, 
it  would  possess  the  nature  of  fire.  In  that  case  you  might  take  all  the  fire 
that  burns,  and  put  it  on  my  hand,  without  tormenting  me.  In  the  same 
manner  I  say,  if  God,  and  those  who  stand  before  his  face,  enjoy  that  per¬ 
fect  happiness,  which  those  who  are  separated  from  him  possess  not,  it  is  the 
“not  having ”  which  torments  the  souls  in  hell  more  than  self-will  or  fire. 
Predigt.  auf  den  ersten  Sonntag  nach  Trinitatis,  quoted  by  Schmidt  (Studien 
und  Kritiken,  1839,  p.  722.) 

14  Schmidt ,  however,  thinks  it  probable  (1.  c.)  that  the  assertion  of  the 
Bishop  of  Strasburg  (quoted  by  Mosheim,  p.  257),  that  the  Beghards  taught, 
quod  non  est  infernus,  nec  purgatorium  (§  206,  note  9),  was  founded  upon  a 

*  In  other  passages,  however,  Erigena  speaks  of  material  fire,  and  illustrates  the  pos¬ 
sibility  of  its  perpetuity  by  the  asbestos  and  the  salamander;  De  Prsed.  17,  7.  19,  1.  4. 
Ritter,  Gesch.  der  Philosopbie,  vii.  282. 


138 


Third  Period.  The  Age  of  Scholasticism. 


mistake.  They  are  further  said  to  have  maintained  :  quod  nullus  dam- 
nabitur  nec  Judaeus,  nec  Sarazenus,  quia  mortuo  corpore  spiritus  redibit 
ad  Dominum. 

§  210. 

ETERNITY  of  the  punishment  of  hell,  restitution  of  all  things. 

John  Scotus  Erigena,  on  the  basis  of  the  universality  of  redemp¬ 
tion,  ventured  to  intimate  a  revival  of  the  notion  of  Origen,  con¬ 
cerning  the  restitution  of  all  things,  without  denying  the  eternity 
of  the  punishments  of  hell.1  This  idea  met  with  approbation 
among  the  mystical  sects.2  The  Catholic  Church,  however,  simply 
retained  the  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of  the  punishments  of  hell  ;3 
as  is  exemplified  in  the  concise  superscription  to  the  hell  of  Dante.4 
The  imagination  of  the  orthodox  mystics,  inflamed  by  the  vision 
of  infinite  woe,  dwelt  with  painful  elaboration  upon  this  forever 
and  ever.5 

* 

1  Erigena  maintained,  with  Augustine,  the  eternity  of  the  punishments  of 
hell,  De  Div.  Nat.  v.  31,  p.  270.  Nevertheless  he  said,  p.  72 :  Aliud  est  omnem 
malitiam  generaliter  in  omni  humana  natura  penitus  aboleri,  aliud  phantasias 
ejus,  malitise  dico,  in  propria  conscientia  eorum,  quos  in  hae  vita  vitiaverat, 
semper  servari,  eoque  modo  semper  puniri.  Comp.  v.  26,  p.  255,56,  v.  27,  p. 
260 :  Divina  siquidem  bonitas  consumet  malitiam,  aeterna  vita  absorbet  mortem, 

beatitudo  miseriam . nisi  forte  adhuc  ambigis  dominum  Jesum  hu- 

manae  naturae  acceptorem  et  salvatorem  non  totam  ipsam,  sed  quantulam- 
cunque  partem  ejus  accepisse  et  salvasse.  Frommuller ,  1.  c.  pp.  86,  87. 

3  Comp.  §  209,  note  14,  and  §  202. 

3  Thomas  Aquinas ,  Qu.  99. 

4  Canto  iii.  v.  9  :  “  Ye  who  enter  here ,  leave  all  hope  behind .” 

6  Suso  (Btichlein  von  der  Weisheit,  cap.  xi.  Yon  immerwahrendem  Weh 
der  Ho  lie,  quoted  by  Diepenbrocfc,  pp.  289,  290,  by  Wackernagcl,  Sp.  879), 
expressed  himself  as  follows  : — Alas  !  misery  and  pain,  they  must  last  for 
ever.  O  !  eternity,  what  art  thou  ?  O  !  end  without  end !  O !  death 
which  is  above  every  death,  to  die  every  hour  and  yet  not  to  be  able  ever 
to  die  !  O  !  father  and  mothqr  and  all  whom  we  love !  May  God  be  mer¬ 
ciful  to  you  for  evermore  ;  for  we  shall  see  you  no  more  to  love  you ;  we 
must  be  separated  for  ever !  O  !  separation,  everlasting  separation,  how 
painful  art  thou  !  O  !  the  wringing  of  hands !  O  !  sobbing,  sighing,  and 
weeping,  unceasing  howling  and  lamenting,  and  yet  never  to  be  heard  ! . .  .  . 
Give  us  a  millstone,  say  the  damned,  as  large  as  the  whole  earth,  and  so 
wide  in  circumference  as  to  touch  the  sky  all  around,  and  let  a  little  bird 
come  once  in  a  hundred  thousand  years,  and  pick  off  a  small  particle  of 
the^tone,  not  larger  than  the  tenth  part  of  a  grain  of  millet,  and  after  an¬ 
other  hundred  thousand  years  let  him  come  again,  so  that  in  ten  hundred 
thousand  years  he  would  pick  off  as  much  as  a  grain  of  millet,  we  wretched 
sinners  would  ask  nothing  but  that  when  this  stone  has  an  end,  our  pains 
might  also  cease ;  yet  even  that  cannot  be  ! 


\ 


FOURTH  PERIOD. 


FROM  THE  REFORMATION  TO  THE  RISE  OF  THE 
PHILOSOPHY  OF  LEIBNITZ  AND  WOLF  IN 
GERMANY :  FROM  THE  YEAR  1517 
TO  ABOUT  1720. 


THE  AGE  OP  POLEMICO-ECCLESIASTICAL  SYM¬ 
BOLISM;  THE  CONFLICT  OF  CONFES¬ 
SIONS  OF  FAITH. 


A.  GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINES  DURING 

THE  FOURTH  PERIOD. 

§  211. 

INTRODUCTION. 

On  the  sources,  and  the  works  on  the  history  of  the  Reformation,  compare  Ease ,  Church 
^  History,  New  York  edition,  p.  358,  sq.,  and  Gieseler,  Church  History,  New  York  edi¬ 
tion,  Yol.  IY.  p.  9,  sq. 

The  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  neither  a  mere 
scientific  reform  of  doctrine,  nor  a  revolution  which  affected  only  the 
external  relations  of  life  (church  polity  and  form  of  worship),  with¬ 
out  touching  doctrinal  questions.  It  was  rather  a  comprehensive 
reformation  of  the  Church  on  the  basis  of  the  newly  awakened 
evangelical  faith ,  as  it  manifested  itself  in  its  practical  and  moral 
aspects.  As  primitive  Christianity  did  not  present  a  complete  scheme 
of  systematic  theology  to  its  adherents,  so  those  who  restored  a 
pure  and  Scriptural  religion  did  not  make  it  their  first  object  to  es¬ 
tablish  a  perfected  and  final  system  of  doctrines.  The  heart,  and  the 
actions  of  the  heart,  preceded,  scientific  forms  of  statement  followed 
in  slow  progression.  Thus  the  publication  of  the  95  theses  (a.  d. 
1517,  Oct.  31st),  in  which  Luther  came  out  against  Tetzel  on  high 


140 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


moral  grounds,  and  the  zeal  which  Zwingle  displayed  about  the 
same  time,  in  combating  the  prevailing  abuses  of  the  Church,  and 
the  corruptions  of  his  age,  became  the  signal  for  further  con¬ 
tests.  The  attack  upon  the  sale  of  indulgences  shook  scholasticism 
to  its  very  foundations  ;  starting  from  this,  the  opposition  to  all 
that  was  unscriptural  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  as  well  as 
in  its  doctrines,  soon  spread  further,  though  its  success  was  not 
everywhere  the  same. 

“  Questions  concerning  ultimate  philosophical  principles  were ,  on  the  whole ,  not  in  the 
spirit  and  thoughts  of  that  aged'  Baumgarten- Crusius ,  Compendium  der  Dogmengeschichte, 
i.  p.  326.  “  It  was  neither  the  vulgar  jealousy  of  the  monastic  orders  against  each  other, 

nor  yet  any  mere  theoretical  interest,  however  noble  this  might  have  been,  which  led 
Luther  in  the  path  of  reform.  Luther  became  a  reformer  because  he  had  learned  at  the 
confessional  the  spiritual  wants  of  the  people.  . .  .It  was  from  a  heartfelt  sympathy  with 
simple  and  honest  souls,  whom  he  saw  abandoned  to  the  arbitrary  will  of  the  priesthood, 
and  deceived  in  respect  to  the  highest  good  of  life:”  Der  heutige  Protestantismus,  seine 
Yergangenheit  und  seine  heutige  Lebensfragen,  Frankf.,  1847,  p.  15.  See  also  Gass , 
Gescb.  d.  Protest.  Dogmatik,  i.  p.  7,  sq.  [Reuter,  Eigenthiimlichkeit  d.  sittlichen  Lendenz 
des  Protest,  im  Yerhaltnisse  zum  Katholicism,  in  Jahrb.  f.  d.  Theol.,  1860.  BrownsorCs  Qu. 
Rev.,  Jan.,  1855.  Whately ,  Errors  of 'Romanism  traced  to  Human  Nature,  1849.] 

§  212. 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  PROTESTANTISM. 

*Gobel,  M.,  die  religiose  Eigenthiimlichkeit  der  lutherischen  und  der  reformirten  Kirche. 
Bonn,  1837.  Dorner ,  Das  Princip  unserer  Kirche  nach  dem  inneren  Yerhaltniss 
seiner  zwei  Seiten.,  Kiel,  1842.  * Schenkel ,  Das  Wesen  des  Protestantismus  aus  den 

Quellen,  3  Bde.,  Schafifh.  1846-52.  Ibid.,  Das  Princip  des  Protestantismus  mit  ' 
besonderer  Beriicksiehtigung  der  neueren  hieriiber  gefiihrten  Yerhandlungen,  Schafifh. 
1852.  J.  H.  Merle  d' Aubigne,  Luther  und  Calvin,  oder  die  luth.  u.  reform.  Kirche  in 
ihrer  Yerschiedenlieit  und  wesentlich.  Einheit ;  deutsch  von  P.  E.  Gottheil,  Baireuth, 
1849.  [English,  in  D’Aubigne  and  his  Writings,  New  York,  1846,  pp.  245-273; 
comp.  Christ,  and  Protest.,  ibid.  pp.  125-145.]  F.  Baur,  Kritische  Studien  iiber  d. 
Wesen  des  Protest,  in  Zeller’s  Jahrb.,  1847,  s.  506,  sq.  H.  Heppe ,  Dogmatik  des 
deutschen  Protestantism,  im  16  Jahrb.  [3  Bde.  Gotha,  1857-9.]  See  the  works  re¬ 
ferred  to  in  the  following  sections.  [For  Hagenbach's  review  of  SchenkeVs  work,  see 
Studien  und  Kritiken,  Jan.,  1853;  De  Welle  on  Schenkel ,  ibid.,  1848.  C.  Beck ,  D. 
Princip  des  Protest,  in  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1851.  F.  A.  Eolzhausen,  Der  Protestantism. 

3  Bde.  1846,  sq.  Eundeshagen ,  d.  deutche  Protestantism.  3d  ed.,  1849.  Thiersch, 
Protest,  u.  Kathol.  Dietlein,  Protest,  und  Kathol.  Halle,  1854.  Twesten,  on  Cathol. 
and  Protest,  in  his  Dogmatik  d.  Luth.  Kirche,  i.  s.  96-217  ;  and  Princip  ds.  Protest., 
ibid.  s.  273-282.  Baur,  D.  Princip  d.  Protest,  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  (Tubingen),  1855. 
De  Remusat ,  Protest,  et  Reform,  in  the  Revue  des  deux  Mondes,  June,  1854.  Rothe , 
Zur  Dogmatik,  in  Stud,  und  Kritik.,  1855,  s.  779,  sq.,  on  the  two  Protestant  princi¬ 
ples,  as  different  aspects  of  the  same  truth. — Jeremy  Taylor,  Dissuasives  from  Popery. 

J.  E.  Cox,  Protest,  and  Popery  Contrasted,  2  vols.,  Oxfi,  1851.  Oxford  Tracts  for 
Times,  passim.] 

The  common  principle  on  which  the  Keformers  planted  them¬ 
selves,  was  only  the  principle  of  Christianity  itself,  as  revealed 
in  the  canonical  Scriptures.  The  only  difference  was  in  the  mode 


§  212.  The  Principles  of  Protestantism. 


141 


in  which  they  respectively  attained  and  enforced  this  principle, 
which  was  determined  by  their  personal  characteristics  and  by  ex¬ 
ternal  circumstances.  Luther,  by  the  deep  experience  of  his  own 
heart  and  life,  was  led  to  the  material  principle  of  Protestantism, 
viz.,  justification  by  faith,  which  is  the  central  point  for  the  right 
understanding  of  the  development  of  the  whole  Protestant  system 
of  theology.  With  this  is  connected  the  breaking  away  from  the 
authority  of  the  Church,  and  the  subjection  to  the  authority  of 
Scripture,  or  the  formal  principle  of  the  Reformation.  Both  prin¬ 
ciples  belong  together.1  Though  there  is  a  relative  truth  in  the 
remark,  that  the  Reformation,  as  aroused  and  led  by  Luther  in  Ger¬ 
many,  laid  the  most  stress  on  the  material  principle,  and  that  the 
Zwinglian  (later,  the  Calvinistic,  or  Reformed)  movement  in  Swit¬ 
zerland  preponderated  in  favor  of  the  formal  principle,2  yet  the 
difference  of  these  two  main  tendencies,  which  sprung  up  within 
the  bosom  of  Protestantism,  is  not  fully  and  satisfactorily  explained 
by  their  difference  on  this  point.3 

1  See  A.  Schweizer ,  Glaubenslehre  der  evang.  Ref.  Kirche,  Zurich,  1844, 
Bd.  i.  s.  3.  Baur ,  Lehrbuch  d.  Dogmengesch.  [s.  272-284,  2d  ed.  Baur 
says,  that  the  most  general  difference  between  Catholicism  and  Protestantism 
is  found  in  the  different  relation,  in  which  what  is  external  and  what  is  in¬ 
ternal  in  religion,  are  put  to  one  another.  As  external  as  is  Catholicism,  so 
internal  is  Protestantism. . .  .In  opposition  to  the  externality  of  Catholicism 
the  fundamental  idea  of  Protestantism  is  that  of  the  absolute  value  of  the 
religious  sentiment,  in  distinction  from  all  that  is  merely  external.  All  that  is 
external  has  a  value  only  in  relation  to  this  internal  experience  and  conviction. 
In  this  aspect  the  principle  of  subjectivity  is  the  principle  of  Protestantism; 
but  this  is  only  one  side  of  its  nature.  The  other,  equally  essential,  is  the 
objective  element,  viz.,  that  in  all  that  concerns  his  salvation,  man  is  entirely 
dependent  on  God  and  divine  grace.  Freedom  and  dependence,  self-activity 
■and  absolute  dependence,  together  make  up  the  essence  of  Protestantism  ; 
as  is  most  signally  manifest  in  the  first  epoch  of  its  history.  And  here,  too, 
are  the  elements  of  the  problem,  which  it  has  ever  since  been  discussing.] 

2  M.  Goebel ,  ubi  supra.  Compare  Ullmann ,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken, 
1843,  s.  756,  sq. 

3  Schweizer ,  Glaubenslehre,  i.  35,  38,  40.  SchenJcel ,  Wesen  des  Protest, 
i.  11.  Ebrard ,  Abendmahlslehre,  ii.  25,  sq.  The  difference  of  the  two  has 
also  been  thus  stated  :  the  one  (the  Lutheran)  was  chiefly  devoted  to  op¬ 
posing  the  Judaism,  and  the  other  (the  Reformed)  to  opposing  the  heathen¬ 
ism  of  the  old  Church  ;  so  Herzog  in  Tholuck’s  lit.  Anzeiger,  1838,  No.  54, 
sq.  y  Schweizer ,  ubi  supra,  s.  15.  But  even  this  cannot  be  carried  out  with¬ 
out  qualifications.  Schweizer  says,  that  the  peculiarity  of  the  Reformed 
(Calvinistic)  theology  consisted  in  holding  fast  to  the  absolute  idea  of  God 
in  opposition  to  all  idolatry  of  the  creature,  while  the  centre  of  gravity  of 
the  Lutheran  system  is  to  be  sought  after  in  the  sphere  of  anthropology. 
Ebrard’s  position  ( ubi  supra ,  27)  is,  that  the  material  principle  of  justifica- 


142 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


tion  by  faith  is  common  to  both,  and  that  the  difference  consists  in  this,  that 
Luther  emphasized  this  justification  (subjectively)  in  opposition  to  works, 
while  Zwingle  insisted  upon  it  (objectively)  in  contrast  with  human  media¬ 
tion  and  reconciliation. — So  much  seems  to  be  certain,  that  no  fundamental 
difference  can  be  said  to  exist  between  the  principles  of  the  Lutheran  and 
Zwingiian  reformation,  but  a  difference  simply  in  the  mode  of  combining 
the  external  and  internal  conditions,  under  which  the  common  principles  were 
established  and  modified.  Comp,  below  §  219,  note  3.  [See  also  Raur , 
Dogmengesch.,  uhi  supra ,  who  says,  that  the  real  Protestant  antagonism  to 
Catholicism  is  found  in  Calvinism,  and  there  too  in  the  very  doctrine,  which 
was  at  first  common  to  all  the  reformers,  but  which  attained  its  systematic 
development  only  in  Calvinism,  that  is,  the  absolute  decree.  Against  the 
Catholic  absolutism  of  the  external  church  was  placed  the  Calvinistic  abso¬ 
lutism  of  the  divine  purpose — it  is  immanent  in  God.  The  Melancthonian 
type  of  theology,  with  its  principle  of  moral  freedom,  is  here,  on  the  Pro¬ 
testant  side,  the  antagonism  to  Calvinism.  Strict  Lutheranism  is  merely 
intermediate  between  these  two,  historical,  rather  than  ideal  or  material. 
See  for  the  Reformed  view,  also,  SchnecJcenburger ,  in  Orthodoxe  Lehre  von 
dem  doppelten  Stande  Christi  nach  luth.  u.  ref.  Fassung,  1848,  and  his  dis¬ 
sertations  in  the  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1847,  and  in  the  Theol.  Jahrb.  (Tubingen), 
1848  ;  also  in  his  posthumous  Yergleichende  Darstellung,  d.  ref.  u.  luth. 
Lehrbegriffs,  1855,  and  Schweizer's  review  of  the  latter  work  in  the  The#l. 
Jahrb.,  1856.] 


§  213. 

[  RELATION  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINES  IN  THE  PRESENT  PERIOD 
TO  THAT  OF  FORMER  PERIODS.  (SYMBOLISM.) 

Compare  Yol.  i.  §  4,  13,  16.  Note  9. 

The  important  events  which  occurred  during  the  present  age;  the 
introduction  of  new  relations  affecting  the  whole  development  of  the 
church,  the  division  of  Christendom  into  two  great  sections — viz., 
the  Protestants  and  the  Roman  Catholics ,  the  separation  between 
the  Lutherans  and  the  Calvinists  (the  Reformed  Church),  which 
took  place  at  an  early  period,  and  the  abiding  schism  between  the 
Roman  Catholic  and  the  Greek  Orthodox  churches,  render  it  ne¬ 
cessary  to  adopt  another  method  in  the  treatment  of  the  history 
of  doctrines.  We  shall  have  to  consider  the  dogmatic  development 
of  each  of  these  great  sections  of  the  church  separately,  as  well  as 
the  relation  in  which  they  stand  to  each  other.  Nor  must  we  pass 
over  those  religious  parties,  which  made  their  appearance  in  the  com¬ 
motion  of  those  times,  and  did  not  join  any  of  the  larger  bodies,  but 
set  themselves  in  opposition  to  each  and  all  of  them,  and  were  looked 
upon  by  them  as  heretical.  And  here,  too,  is  found  the  determining 
element,  which  gives  a  new  shape  to  the  History  of  Doctrines,  so 
that  in  its  flow  it  is  expanded  into  the  form  of  Symbolism. 


§  214.  Luther  and  Melancthon. 


143 


L  THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH. 

§  214. 

■3 

LUTHER  AND  MELANCTHON. 

Pfizer ,  G.,  Leben  Luthers.  Stuttg.,  1846  (together  with  the  other  biographical  works,  both 
ancient  and  modern,  by  Spieker ,  Meurer ,  Jurgens,  Gelzer ,  etc.  See  the  Church  His¬ 
tories  of  Ease  and  Gieseler.)  J.  G.  Planck ,  Gesch.  d.  Entstehung,  Y eranderung  u. 
Bildung  des  Prot.  LehrbegrifFs.  Lpz.,  1791-1800,  vii.  Bde.  Ph.  Marheineke ,  Gesch. 
d.  deutschen  Reformation  bis  1555,  iv.  Bde.,  Berlin,  1831,  sq.  L.  Ranke,  deutsche 
Gesch.  im  Zeitalter  d.  Reform.,  v.  Bde.,  Berl.,  1839-43.  [English  version,  by  Sarah 
Austin,. republ.  in  Phil.,  1844;  YI.  Books.]  Dieckhoff,  Luther’s  evang.  Lehrgedanken, 
in  Deutsche  Zeitschrift,  Berk,  Mai,  1852.  [  Weisse ,  Die  Cbristologie  Luther’s,  1858. 

G.  F  G.  Held ,  De  Opere  Jesu  Christi  salutari  quid  M.  Lutherus  senserit  demonstratur, 
Getting.  1860.  Hare's  Mission  of  the  Comforter,  Appendix,  on  Luther’s  views 
against  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton,  1855  :  see  Brit,  and  For.  Quarterly,  1856.  Luther’s 
Lehre  von  d.  Gnade,  in  Theol.  Zeitschrift,  1860.  H.  Vorreiler,  Luther’s  Ringen  mit 
d.  anti-christl.  Princip  d.  Revolution,  1860.  Other  biographies  of  Luther  by  Audin 
(Rom.  Cath.)  2.  Paris,  1841,  (six  editions),  transl.,  Phil.,  1841 :  by  Michelet ,  Paris, 
1845,  transl.,  New  York,  1846 :  Bollinger's  sketch,  1851,  transl.,  Lond.,  1851 :  J.  E. 
Riddle ,  Lond.,  1837  :  J.  Scott,  N.  Y.  ed.,  1853 :  Henry  Worsley ,  2.  8vo.,  Lond., 
1856-7.  Rosseeuw  St.  Hilaire ,  Life  and  Labors  of  Luther,  trans.  from  Rev.  Chretienne, 
in  Brit,  and  For.  Ev.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1841.  Ghs.  de  Remusat ,  in  Revue  des  deux  Mondes, 
1854.  Bunsen ,  in  the  Edinburgh  Encycl.,  8th  ed.  Kostlin  in  Herzog’s  Realencycl. 
Comp.  Merle  d'Aubigne ,  Hist.  Reform.,  5  vols.,  Paris,  1835,  sq.,  Edinb.  and  New 
York,  in  various  editions.  In  the  projected  Leben  und  Schriften  der  Yater  der 
lutherischen  Kirche,  Luther  by  Schneider ,  2  Bde.] 

Melancthon. — F.  Galle,  Yersuch  einer  Charakteristik  Melancthons,  1840.  [A.  H.  Niemeyer , 
Mel.  als  Prseceptor  Germanise,  Halse,  1817:  Matthes ,  Altenb.,  1841:  G.  E.  Led- 
derhose ,  Life  of  Mel.,  transl.  by  Krotel ,  New  York,  1854 :  Life,  by  Cox,  Lond.  and 
Bost.,  1835.  Mtzsch,  in  Deutsche  Zeitschrift,  1855.  J.  E.  Volbeding ,  Mel.  wie  er 
leibte  und  lebte.,  I860.  J.  F.  T.  Wohlfartk,  Zum  Secular- Andenken,  1858.  Planck, 
Mel.  Prseceptor  Germ.,  1860.  C.  Schlottman,  De  Phil.  Mel.  reipubl.  litt.  Reform., 
Bonn,  1860.  Orations  by  Dorner,  Saupp,  and  Giindert  in  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theol. 
1860.  Richard  Rothe’s  Address,  transl.  by  E.  N.  White,  in  Am.  Theol.  Rev.,  1861. 
Life  of  MeL  by  C.  Schmidt ,  in  the  proposed  work,  Leben  d.  Yater  d.  luth.  Kirche.] 

It  may  be  said,  on  the  one  hand,  that  Dr.  Martin  Luther  became 
emphatically  the  Reformer  of  the  German  Church,  and  thus  the 
reformer  of  a  great  part  of  the  universal  church,  by  his  grand  per¬ 
sonal  character,  and  heroic  career,1  by  the  publication  of  his  theses,8 
by  sermons  and  expositions  of  Scripture,3  by  disputations  and  bold 
controversial  writings,4  by  numerous  letters  and  circular  epistles,  by 
memorials  and  judgments  on  controverted  points,6  by  intercourse 
with  persons  of  all  classes  of  society,  by  pointed  maxims  and 
hymns,6  but  especially  by  his  translation  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures 
into  the  German  language.7  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  the  work 
of  the  calmer  and  more  learned  Philip  Melancthon  to  conduct  the 
mighty  stream  of  the  newly  awakened  life  of  faith  into  a  circum- 


144 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


scribed  channel.  In  addition  to  many  other  valuable  theologiqal 
works,  he  composed  the  first  compendium  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Protestant  Church  (Loci  Communes  sive  Theologici),  which  formed 
the  basis  of  other  treatises.8 

1  He  was  born  at  Eisleben  a.  d.  1483,  Nov.  10th. — In  the  year  1507  he 
enters  the  monastery  of  the  Augustiniau  monks  at  Erfurt,  removes  in  the 
following  year  to  Wittenberg,  where  he  teaches  first  philosophy,  and  after¬ 
wards  theology,  makes  a  journey  to  Rome,  1510,  and  takes  his  degree  of 
doctor  of  theology,  1512. — Publication  of  the  theses  1517,  Oct.  31st. — 
Luther  is  summoned  before  the  Pope — has  an  interview  with  Cajetan  in 
Augsburg,  1518,  Oct. — Interview  with  Miltitz — Controversy  with  Eck,  Wim- 
pina,  and  others. — Dispute  of  Leipsic,  1519,  June — Excommunication  of 
Luther,  1520. — He  burns  the  bull  and  the  papal  decrees  1520,  Dec. — Diet 
&f  Worms  under  the  Emperor  Charles  V. — Luther’s  defence  on  that  occa¬ 
sion  (1521,  April.) — He  is  outlawed,  and  constrained  to  take  up  his  abode 
in  the  Wartburg  (from  May  1521  to  March  1522.) — He  leaves  his  place  of 
concealment  to  oppose  the  prophets  of  Zwickau. — Further  spread  of  the 
Reformation  in  Germany,  commencing  at  Wittenberg. — The  war  of  the  pea¬ 
santry,  controversy  concerning  the  sacraments,  Luther’s  marriage  (1524- 
1525.) — Visitation  of  the  churches,  1527. — Diet  of  Augsburg,  1530. — Luther’s 
residence  in  Coburg — A  period  of  manifold  sufferings  and  vexations. — His 
death  1546,  Febr.  18th. —  Complete  editions  of  his  vjorks  are  :  that  of  Wit¬ 
tenberg,  twelve  volumes  in  German  (1539-59),  and  seven  volumes  in  Latin 
(1545-58)  ;  that  of  Jena,  eight  volumes  in  German  (1555-58),  and  four  in 
Latin  (1556-58),  in  addition  to  which  two  supplementary  volumes  were 
published  by  Aurifaber.  Eisleben  1564,  65  ;  that  of  Altenburg,  in  ten  volumes 
in  German  (1661-64);  that  of  Leipsic,  in  twenty-two  volumes  (1729-40); 
and  lastly,  that  of  Halle,  edited  by  Watch,  in  twenty-four  volumes  (1740-50). 
See  Gieseler ,  iv.  p.  9,  and  Rotermund ,  II.  V.,  Verzeichniss  der  verschiedenen 
Ausgaben  der  sammtlichen  Schriften  Luthers.  Bremen,  1813.  8.  [Luther’s 
Sammtliche  (Deutsche)  Werke,  herausg.  J.  Iv.  Irmischer,  67  Bde.,  Frankf. 
a.  m.,  completed,  1856;  L.’s  Exegetica  Opera  Latina,  curavitH.  Schmidt,  22 
vols.  to  1860,  Francof.] — Luther  did  not  compose  a  system  of  doctrinal 
theology,  but  others  compiled  it  from  liis  writings.  This  was  done  e.  g.  by 
Heinrich  Majus ,  Professor  in  piessen,  who  wrote  :  Lutheri  Theologia  pura 
et  sincera,  ex  Viri  divini  Scriptis  universis,  maxime  tamen  Latinis,  per  omnes 
fidei  Articulos  digesta  et  concinnata.  (Francof.  ad.  M.  1709,  with  a  supple¬ 
ment.)  Similar  works  were  composed  by  Timoth.  Kir chner ,  Andr.  Mus - 
, cuius,  Theodos.  Fabricius ,  Michael  Neander  (Theologia  Megalandri  Lutheri. 
Eisl.  1587.  12),  Elias  Veiel.  See  Sender,  Einleitung  zu  Baumgarten’s  Glau- 
benslehre  ii.  p.  146.  Heinrich ,  Geschichte  der  Lehrarten,  etc.,  p.  248. 

2  They  are  given  in  Loscher’s  Reformationsacten,  i.  p.  438,  ss.,  and  Herm . 
von  der  Hardt ,  Historia  Reformat.  Litt.  P.  iv.  p.  16.  Compare  also  Gieseler , 
Church  Hist.  iv.  p.  19,  note,  where  the  most  important  theses  may  be  found. 
“  The  whole  life  of  believers  on  earth  is  to  be  one  of  unceasing  repentance ; 
this  is  the  sum  and  kernel  of  these  theses ,  and  of  evangelical  Protestantism 
Schenkel ,  Die  Reformatoren,  s.  24. 


§  214.  Luther  and  Melancthon. 


145 


a  For  an  account  of  the  different  collections  of  sermons,  homilies,  etc. 
(Kirchen-  und  Hauspostill,  etc.)  see  Lentz ,  Geschichte  der  christlichen 
Homiletik,  ii.  pp.  22,  23. — His  exegetical  works  (e.  g.  his  commentary 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  1535-38),  are  of  use  in  the  history  of 
doctrines. 

4  The  several  controversial  writings  which  he  composed  in  opposition,  both 
to  the  advocates  of  the  old  system,  and  to  the  real  or  supposed  corrupters 
of  the  new  doctrines,  as  well  as  the  reports  of  public  disputations,  will  be 
specified  in  their  proper  connexions  in  the  special  history  of  doctrines. 

5  Briefe,  Sendschreiben  und  Bedenken,  edited  by  de  Wette,  five  volumes, 
Berlin,  1825-28;  Vol.  vi.,  ed.  Seidemann ,  1856.  (Comp,  the  chronolog¬ 
ical  table  of  de  Wette,  prefixed  to  these  Epistles,  with  that  in  note  1,  above.) 

6  Gebauer ,  Luther  als  Kirchenliederdichter.  Leipzig,  1828.  The  latest 
edition  appeared  under  the  care  of  Winterfield,  1840.  Luther’s  maxims  are 
for  the  most  part  collected  in  the  “Tischreden”  (i.  e.  Table-talk),  published 
by  Aurifaber.  An  edition  of  the  Tischreden,  by  Forstemann  and  JBlndseil , 
1844-48.  [A  translation,  with  Life,  by  A.  Chalmers ,  in  Vol.  127  of  Bohn’s 
Standard  Library,  London.] 

7  The  translation  of  the  Bible  was  commenced  during  his  residence  in  the 
Wartburg,  and  that  of  the  New  Testament  was  completed,  1522.  The  first 
German  translation  of  the  whole  Bible  was  published  by  Hans  Lufft  in  Wit¬ 
tenberg,  a.  d.  1534  (compare  the  editions  of  1541.  45.)  Further  particulars 
will  be  found  in  Panzer ,  G.  W.,  Entwurf  einer  vollstand.  Geschichte  der 
Bibeliibersetzung  Dr.  M.  Luthers.  Nurnb.  1783.  8,  and  the  other  works  on 
this  subject  written  by  Marheineke ,  Weidemann ,  Lucke ,  Schott ,  Grotefend , 
and  Mann  (Stuttgart,  1835.)  Compare  Gieseler ,  iv.  65,  note.  Hopj \  on 
this  translation,  1847. 

8  His  original  name  was  Schwarzerd ;  he  was  born  at  Bretten,  in  the 
Palatinate,  1497,  Febr.  16th;  and  delivered  lectures  in  the  university  of 
Wittenberg.  He  was  surnamed  Prceceptor  Germanice .  His  lectures  on 
Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Romans  gave  rise  to  his  celebrated  work :  Loci  Com¬ 
munes  Rerum  Theologicarum  sen  Hypotyposes  Theologicse.*  1521  in  4to.  In 
the  same  year  it  was  also  published  in  8vo ;  it  has  passed  through  upwards  of 
a  hundred  editions,  more  than  sixty  of  which  appeared  during  his  lifetinfe. 
The  Loci  were  several  times  improved,  and  from  the  year  1550  published 
under  the  title  :  Loci  Prascipui  Theologici.  Comp.  Herm.  von  der  Hardt , 
Hist.  Reform.  Litter.  P.  iv.  p.  30,  ss.  One  of  the  best  of  the  late  editions  is 
that  of  *  Angus  ti,  Lips.  1821.  H.  Balthasar ,  Historia  Locorum  Phil. 
Melanc.  Gryphisw.  1761. — Luther  (De  Servo  Arbitrio)  called  the  work:  in- 
victum  libellum,  non  solum  immortalitate,  sed  canone  etiam  ecclesiastico 
dignum.  Compare  the  passage  quoted  from  his  “Tischreden”  by  Galle , 

c  On  the  signification  of  the  word  Locus,  see  JEIeppe,  Dogmatik  des  deutschen  Protes¬ 
tant.  s.  6.  By  the  Loci  are  meant  the  proper  doy/Liara,  the  sedes  doctrinse.  [The  classical 
sense  of  tottoc,  locus,  is,  a  principle:  Cicero  speaks  of  loci ,  quasi  sedes,  e  quibus  ar- 
gumenta  promuntur.”  The  Loci  Communes  are  the  fundamental  ideas  or  truths  of  theol¬ 
ogy.  Melancthon  says,  that  his  Hypotyposes  are  wholly  different  from  the  Sententiae  of 
Peter  Lombard :  they  are  not  a  system,  but  rather  an  introduction  to  the  study  of  the 
Scriptures.  Eeppe ,  u.  s.] 


10 


146 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


p.  20.  Strobel ,  Litterargeschichte  von  Phil.  Melancthon’s  Locis  Theologicis 
Altdorf  und  Niirnberg  1776.  8.  Concerning  other  doctrinal  and  polemical 
writings  of  Melancthon,  see  Heinrich ,  1.  c.  p.  268,  ss.  Galle ,  1.  c.  Bret¬ 
schneider ,  Corpus  Reformatorum  T.  i. — xxviii.  Schwarz ,  Melancthon’s  Loci 
nach  ihrer  weiteren  Entwicklung  (Stud.  u.  Kritik.,  1857,  s.  297  :  cf.  ibid., 
1855.  Gass ,  Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Dogmatik,  23.  Heppe,  Dogmatik  des  deuts- 
chen  Protest,  s.  9,  sq.  Bretschneider ,  Corpus  Reformat,  xxi.  and  xxii.  (a 
critical  collection  of  the  different  editions  by  Bindseil.)  [The  edition  of 
Melancthon’s  works,  projected  by  Bretschneider  in  his  Corpus  Reformat, 
was  brought  to  its  completion  in  1860,  by  the  publication  of  the  28th  vol., 
edited  by  H.  E.  Bindseil.  An  edition  of  the  Zocz,  after  that  of  1559,  Berlin, 
1856  ;  a  reprint  of  the  edition  of  1521,  edited  by  M.  I.  E.  Yolbeding, 
Leipz.,  I860.] 


§  215. 

THE  SYMBOLICAL  BOOKS  OF  THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH. 

On  the  literature  compare  vol.  i.  §  13,  p.  30,  and  §  16,  p.  42.  [LT.  Heppe ,  Die  Bekenn- 
tuisschriften  der  altprotestantischen  Kirche  Deutschlands,  Cassel,  1855.] 

Melancthon  was  chosen  by  the  newly  formed  Protestant  church  to 
draw  up  a  confession  of  faith  in  a  concise,  clear,  and  pacific  form, 
on  the  basis  of  those  doctrines  which  he,  with  Luther  and  other 
divines,  agreed  in  receiving.  From  its  solemn  presentation  at  the 
diet  of  Augsburg  (a.  d.  1530),  it  received  the  name  of  the  Confes¬ 
sion  of  Augsburg  (Confessio  Augustana.)1  The  Confutation  pub¬ 
lished  by  the  Roman  Catholics,  in  opposition  to  the  Confession  of 
Augsburg,2  gave  rise,  soon  after,  to  a  new  symbolical  book  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  the  Apology  of  the  Confession ,  of  which  Me¬ 
lancthon  was  the  sole  author.3  The  Articles  of  Smalcald  (a.  d. 
1536-37),  composed  by  Luther,  in  much  bolder  terms,  followed 
somewhat  later.4  These  completed  the  series  of  official  documents 
and  apologies,  which  bore  upon  the  external  relations  of  the  new 
church.6  But  in  order  to  establish  the  internal  relations  of  the 
Protestant  Church  on  a  firm  doctrinal  basis,  the  two  Catechisms  of 
Luther  were  added  to  the  collection  of  symbolical  books  as  normal 
compendiums.6  And  lastly,  in  consequence  of  many  and  violent 
controversies  respecting  the  fundamental  principles  of  Protestant¬ 
ism,  which  arose  within  the  Lutheran  Church  itself,7  it  was  found 
necessary,  after  various  but  unsuccessful  attempts  to  restore  peace, 
to  draw  up  the  Formula  Concordice,  {Germ.  Concordienformel  a.  d. 
1577),  in  which  the  disputed  points  were  considered,  and,  as  far  as 
possible,  determined.8  All  these  books  were  now  collected  into  a 
symbolical  canon  (a.  d.  1580),  the  Liber  Concordice  {Germ.  Con- 
cordienbuch).  In  the  course  of  time  this  canon  acquired  such  high 


§  215.  Symbols  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  147 

authority,  that  the  clergy  had  to  subscribe  it  as  solemnly  as  Scrip¬ 
ture  itself.® 

1  Confessio  Augustana,  on  the  basis  of  the  seventeen  articles  of  Torgau 
(Schwabach),  composed  by  order  of  the  Prince  Elector  of  Saxony  by  Luther, 
Jonas,  Bugenhagen,  and  Melancthon.  The  original  edition  was  published  in 
German  and  Latin,  a.  d.  1530  by  G.  Rhaw  (in  modern  times  it  has  been 
edited  by  Winer,  1825,  Tittmann,  1830,  Twesten,  1840,  1850,  Francke,  1846), 
new  edition  by  Heppe,  Kassel,  1855.  [Muller,  1848.]  It  consists  of  twenty- 
eight  articles ;  in  the  first  twenty-one  the  principal  doctrines  (Articuli  fidei 
prsecipui)  are  discussed  with  reference  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrines,  but 
in  moderate  terms  ;  the  last  seven  treat  of  the  abusus  mutatos.  Further  par¬ 
ticulars  (of  its  literary  history)  are  given  by  Winer,  Comparative  Darstel- 
lung,  p.  13.  Gieseler,  Church  History,  iv.  p.  139,  243,  ss.  Many  details 
respecting  its  origin,  and  the  elevation  of  mind  of  its  confessors,  will  be 
found  in  the  work  of  Rotermund ,  Geschichte  des  Reichstages  in  Augsburg. 
Hanover,  1829.  Concerning  the  critical  part  see  Weber,  Geschichte  der 
Augsburgischen  Confession.  Frankf.,  1783,  84,  ii.  Forstemann ,  Urkunden- 
buch,  Halle,  1833.,  35.  Rudelbach ,  A.  G.,  historisch-kritische  Einleitung  in 
die  Augsburgische  Confession.  Dresden,  1841.  On  the  relation  of  the 
Variata  edition  of  1540  (considered  as  the  more  complete  and  enriched 
(locupletirte)  edition)  to  the  invariata ,  see  Heppe ,  Die  confessionelle  Ent- 
wicklung  der  altprotestantischen  Kirche  Deutschlands,  Marb.,  1854,  s.  110, 
sq .  [English  translation  of  the  Augsb.  Confession,  Rev.  W.  H.  Teale,  Loud., 
1842.  Its  articles  are  also  translated  in  P.  Hall,  Harmony  of  Confessions, 
Lond.,  1842.  On  the  Variata,  see  Gieseler,  Church  Hist.,  iv.  §  36,  note 
33.  The  Augsburg  Confess,  in  its  original  and  revised  forms  in  Heppe,  Die 
Bekenntuisschriften,  s.  7-107,  337-407.] 

3  It  was  composed  by  a  number  of  Roman  Catholic  theologians  (among 
whom  were  Eck  and  Faber),  and  read  aloud  (in  German)  in  the  Diet,  1530, 
Aug.  3d,  but  no  copy  of  it  was  communicated  to  the  Protestant  estates.  It 
was  only  afterwards  that  Melancthon  obtained  a  copy.  It  is  reprinted  in 
j Rase,  Libri  Symbolici,  p.  55,  ss.  (ed.  5th.) 

3  The  first  sketch  of  the  Apology  was  composed  from  memory  of  what 

was  contained  in  the  Confutatio,  as  the  author  had  no  copy  of  the  writing 
of  his  opponents,  and  presented  to  the  Emperor  Charles  V.,  a.  d.  1530, 
Sept.  22d.  It  was  afterwards  revised,  after  Melancthon  had  seen*  the  Con¬ 
futatio,  and  published  1531,  both  in  Latin  and  German,  together  with  the 
Confession  of  Augsburg.  The  same  arrangement  is  adopted  in  the  Apology 
as  in  the  Confession,  but  the  number  of  articles  is  reduced  to  16.  “  With 

regard  to  its  intrinsic  worth,  this  work ,  no  doubt,  occupies  the  first  place 
among  the  symbols  of  the  Lutheran  Church  Winer,  p.  16.  Even  Ernesti 
called  it  “  a  masterpiece  in  the  argument  ex  dictis  Scriptures,  ex  natura 
rerum,  and  consensu  patrumfi  etc.  See  Ernesti,  neue  theologische  Bib- 
liothek,  vol.  ii.  p.  413.  It  was  edited  by  Lucke,  in  Latin  and  German,  Berl., 
1818.  [Heppe,  ubi  supra,  107-307.] 

4  These  were  drawn  up  in  German,  in  order  to  be  presented  at  the  council 
summoned  by  Pope  Paul  III.  (a.  d.  1536),  and  signed  by  the  assembly  of 


148 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Smalcald  (1537,  Feb.)  The  first  German  edition  appeared  at  Wittenberg 
1538.  They  were  republished  from  a  MS.  in  the  Library  of  Heidelberg 
by  Dr.  Phil .  Marheinelce,  Berl.,  1817,  4°. — The  work  consists  of  three  parts  1 
1.  de  summis  articulis  divinse  majestatis;  2.  de  summis  articulis,  qui  officium 
et  opus  Jesu  Christi  s.  redemtionem  nostram  concernunt ;  3.  articuli,  de 
quibus  agere  potuerimus  cum  doctis  et  prudentibus  viris  vel  etiam  inter  nos 
ipsos.  (An  appendix  was  afterwards  added  of  Melancthon’s  treatise,  De 
Potestate  et  Primatu  Papae.) — The  relation  of  the  polemic  element  to  the 
irenic  is  here  different  from  what  it  is  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Here 
the  polemical  preponderates.  On  the  question,  whether  those  Articles  had 
from  the  first  symbolical  authority,  see  Heppe ,  Dogmatik  des  deutschen  Pro- 
testantimus,  s.  106.  [Heppe ,  Bekenntuisschriften,  317-337.] 

6  On  the  distinction  between  those  symbolical  writings  which 'have  regard 
to  external  relations,  and  those  which  refer  to  internal  relations,  see  Schleier - 
macher ,  fiber  den  eigenthiimlichen  Werth  und  das  Ansehen  symbolischer 
Bucher,  in  the  Reform.  Almanach.  Vol.  ii.  1819,  p.  235,  ss.  [For  the  Con- 
fessio  Saxonica,  Confessio  Wurtembergica,  the  Frankfort  Recess,  and  the 
Naumburg  Repetition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  see  Heppe ,  ubi  supra.] 

6  In  the  year  1529,  Luther  wrote  both  the  Catechismus  major  (for  the  use 

of  the  clergy  and  schoolmasters)  and  the  Catechismus  minor  (for  the  use  of 
the  people  and  children),  not  in  order  to  force  a  system  of  doctrines  upon  the 
church,  but  to  supply  a  practical  deficiency.  Both  were  divided  into  five 
leading  parts.  On  the  different  editions,  appendices,  etc.,  see  Winer,  1.  c.  p. 
16.  *Augusti  Einleitung  in  die  beiden  Hauptkatechismen  der  evangeli- 
schen  Kirche.  Elberfeld,  1824.  Illgen ,  C.  P.,  Memoria  utriusque  Catech. 
Lutheri.  Lips.,  1828-30.  4  Programmes  4to. 

7  The  most  important  of  these  controversies  are  the  following : — 

a.  The  Antinomian  Controversy ;  it  originated  with  John  Agricola  of 

Eisleben  (from  the  year  1536  he  was  professor  in  the  university  of 
Wittenberg),  during  Luther’s  lifetime.  Comp.  Elwert ,  de  Antinomia 
J.  Agricolse  Islebii.  Tur.,  1836. 

b.  The  Adiaphoristic  Controversy ,  which  had  its  origin  in  the  Interim  of 

Leipsic  (from  the  year  1548),  and  gave  rise  to  a  lasting  difference 
between  the  more  moderate  views  of  Philip  Melancthon,  and  the 
more  rigid  doctrines  of  the  orthodox  Lutherans.  The  former  view 
was  represented  by  the  university  of  Wittenberg,  the  latter  by  that 
of  Jena.  [ Gieseler ,  iv.  457,  sq. ]  This  difference  manifested  itself 
especially  in 

c.  The  Controversy  between  George  Major  and  Nicolas  Amsdorf \  con¬ 

cerning  the  question,  whether  good  works  are  necessary  to  salva¬ 
tion,  or  whether  they  rather  possess  a  dangerous  tendency  (about  the 
year  1559,  ss.)  This  controversy  was  connected  with  the  two  fol¬ 
lowing — viz. 

d.  The  Synergistic  Controversy  respecting  the  relation  in  which  human 

liberty  stands  to  divine  grace;  it  was  called  forth  (a.  d.  1555)  by  the 
treatise  of  John  P f effing er :  De  libero  Arbitrio,  which  was  combated 
by  Amsdorf.  [ Gieseler ,  iv.  444,  445.] 


§  215.  Symbols  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 


149 


e .  The  Controversy  respecting  the  nature  of  original  sin,  between  Victorin 

S  trigel  (in  Jena,)  and  Matthias  Flacius .  It  commenced  a.  d.  1560, 
and  led  to  the  disputation  of  Weimar,  a.  d.  1561.  Twesten ,  Matthias 
Flacius  Illyricus,  Berlin,  1844.  [  W.  Preger ,  Matth.  Flac.  Illyricus  und 
seine  Zeit.  Erlang.,  1859.  Gass,  Prot.  Dogm.  i.  56,  s<?.]  About  the 
same  time  a  controversy  was  carried  on  in  Prussia — viz. 

f.  The  Controversy  between  Andrew  Osiamder  (in  Konigsberg)  and 

Joachim  Morlin ,  Francis  Stancarus ,  etc. ;  it  bore  upon  the  relation 
in  which  justification  stands  to  sanctification,  and  to  the  main  point  in 
the  work  of  redemption.  Comp.  Tholuck,  literarischer  Anzeiger,  1833, 
No.  54,  ss.  [Comp.  Gieseler ,  iv.  469.  A.  Ritschl ,  Die  Rechtfertigungs- 
lehre  Osianders,  in  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theologie,  1857.  Haur,  Brevis 
Disquisitio  de  Andr.  Osiandr.,  1831.  Heberle ,  in  Stud.  u.  Kritik., 
1844.  Wilken ,  Osianders  Leben,  i.  1844.  F.  H.  R.  Frank,  De 
Satisf.  Christi . . . .  ex  lite  Osiandr.  Erlang.,  1858.  B.  F.  Grau,  De 
Andr.  Osiandri  Doctrina,  1860.  Life  of  Osiander,  by  Lehnerdt,  in 
the  projected  Leben  d.  Yater  der  lutherischen  Kirche,  Bd.  v.] 

g.  The  ( Cryptocalvinistic )  Controversy  concerning  the  Lord’s  Supper: 

First,  In  the  Palatinate  between  W.  Klebitz  and  Tileman  Hesshus 
(a.  d.  1559.)  In  consequence  of  it,  not  only  were  both  these  pas¬ 
tors  dismissed,  but  Frederic  III.,  Prince  Elector  of  the  Palatinate, 
also  went  over  to  the  Reformed  Church.  \Gieseler,  iv.  447-457.]  Sec¬ 
ondly,  The  controversy  which  took  place  in  Bremen  between  Albrecht 
Hardenberg  and  the  said  Hesshus  (a.  d.  1561),  together  with  its 
consequences.  Thirdly,  The  controversy  carried  on  in  Saxony  itself. 
There  Casper  Peucer,  the  son-in-law  of  Melancthon,  succeeded  in 
gaining  over  the  Prince  Elector  Augustus,  as  well  as  Crell  and  others, 
to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  (Consensus  Dresdensis),  until  the  former, 
having  obtained  a  better  knowledge  of  the  real  state  of  things  by 
the  Exegesis  perspicua  Controversiae  de  Coena  Domini,  in  which  the 
views  of  Peucer’s  party  were  more  distinctly  set  forth,  commenced  a 
bloody  persecution  of  the  Cryptocalvinists,  and  adopted  measures  for 
the  restoration  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy. 

On  all  these  controversies  compare  the  works  on  ecclesiastical  history,  and 
the  history  of  the  Reformation,  as  well  as  the  well-known  works  of  Walch, 
Planck,  etc.  They  will  be  considered  in  the  special  history  of  doctrines. 
Gass,  Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Dogmatik,  i.  56.  \Gieseler,  Church  History,  Yol. 
iv.  §  37-42.] 

8  The  Formula  Concordiae  was  based  upon  the  articles  drawn  up  in  Tor- 
gau  (1576. — Torgauisches  Buch),  and  composed  in  the  monastery  of  Bergen 
near  Magdeburg  (1577),  by  Jacob  Andrew  (Schmidlin),  chancellor  of  Wir- 
temberg,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Saxonian  theologians,  Martin  Chemnitz, 
Nicolas  Selnecker,  David  Chytraeus ,  Andrew  Musculus,  and  Christopher 
Korner,  on  the  other.  It  was  called  the  “  Bergisches  Buch,”  and  acquired 
symbolical  authority,  not  only  in  Saxony,  but  also  in  other  towns  and  coun¬ 
tries,  while  it  met  with  opposition  in  Hesse,  Anhalt,  Pomerania,  and  several 
of  the  free  cities.  *  In  Brandenburg  and  upper  Palatinate  it  was  first  adopted, 
but  afterwards  lost  its  reputation.  [See  Gieseler,  iv.  487.] — The  Formula 


150 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


consists  of  two  parts:  1.  The  shorter  one,  Epitome;  2.  The  logger  one. 
Solida  Declaratio.  It  was  originally  published  in  German,  and  translated 
into  Latin  by  L.  Osiander.  Comp.  Nicholas  Anton ,  Geschichte  der  Concor- 
dienformel.  Leipzig,  1779,  ii.  8.  Planck,  vi.  [A.  F.  Goschel ,  Die  Con- 
cordienformel,  Gesch.,  Lehre,  etc.,  Leipsic,  1858.  H.  Heppe ,  Gesch.  d. 
Cone.  Form.,  1857.  F.  H.  R.  Frank ,  Die  Theologie  der  Concordienformel, 
1858.  J.  G.  Martens ,  (Rom.  Cath.)  Die  Form.  Concord.,  1860.  Ko  liner’s 
Symbolik.  Gieseler’s  Church  Hist.  iv.  §  40.] 

9  The  German  title  of  it  is  :  “  Concordia,  christliche,  wiederholte,  ein- 
mutliige  Bekenntniss  nachgenannter  Churfursten,  Ftirsten  und  Stande  Augs- 
burgischer  Confession  und  derselben  zu  Ende  des  Buchs  unterschriebenen 
Theologen  Lehre  und  Glaubens,  mit  angehefter,  in  Gottes  Wort,  als  der 
einigen  Richtschnur,  wohlgegriindeter  Erklarung  etlicher  Artikel,  bei  wel- 
chen  nach  Dr.  Martin  Luthers  seligen  Absterben  Disputation  und  Streit 
vorgefallen.  Aus  einhelliger  Yergleichung  und  Befehl  obgedachter  Chur¬ 
fursten,  Ftirsten  und  Stande  derselben  Landen,  Kirchen,  Schulen  und  Nach- 
kommen  zum  Unterricht  und  Warnung  in  Druck  verfertigt.”  Dresden, 
1580,  fob  [Transl.  by  A,  Henkel ,  New  Market,  Va.,  1854.] 


§  216. 

THE  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY  OP  THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH. 

*» 

Buddei ,  Isagoge  (Lips.  1721),  i.  p.  387,  ss.  Walchii  Bibliotheca  Theologica  selecta,  i. 
p.  33,  ss.  Sender ,  Einleitung  in  die  dogmatische  Gottesgelehrsamkeit  (the  introduc¬ 
tion  to  Baumgarten’s  Glaubenslehre,  vol.  ii.  iii.)  Heinrich ,  Geschichte  der  Lehrarten 
der  protestantischen  Kirche,  p.  271,  ss.  [Heinr.  Schmid ,  Dogmatik  der  evang. 
Luther,  Kirche  4te  Aufl.,  1858.]  He  Wette,  Dogmatik  der  protestantischen  Kirche 
edit.  3d,  p.  17,  ss.  Hase ,  Hutterus  Redivivus,  oder  Dogmatik  der  evangel,  lutheri- 
schen  Kirche  [8th  ed.,  1855],  A.  Tholuck,  Der  Geist  der  lutherischen  Theologen 
Wittenbergs  im  Verlaufe  des  17.  Jahrhunderts,  Hamb.,  1852.  [Tholuck,  Das 
akadenische  Leben  d.  17,  Jahrhund.  2te  Abtheilung,  1854:  Lebenzeugen,  1856.] 
*W.  Gass,  Gesch.  d.  Protest.  Dogmatik,  2  Bde.,  Berk,  1854-7.  Comp.  §  212. 
{He-ppe,  Gesch.  d.  deutschen  Protest.  4  Bde.,  1853-9.  Gieseler,  Church  Hist.  iv.  §  48. 
A.  Schweizer ,  Die  Protest.  Centraldogmen,  2  Bde.,  Zurich,  1854.  Ebrard,  Dogmatik, 
i.  6,  sq.,  translated  in  Mercersburg  Review,  April,  1857.  Twesten  Dogmatik  L 
228-273.] 

Many  works  on  systematic  theology  were  published  by  different 
writers ;  some  of  whom,  such  as  Martin  Chemnitz /  Victorin 
Strigel ,9  and  Nicholas  Selnecker ,3  followed  Melancthon  ;  while 
others,  e.  g.  Leonhard  Hutter ,4  John  Gerhard ,5  Jacob  Heerbrand* 
Matthias  HaffenrefferJ  and  others,  adopted  the  strict  Lutheran  view, 
and  closely  adhered  to  the  Formula  Concordise.  These  works  were, 
for  the  most  part,  called  Loci  Theologici,  and  arranged  after  the  syn¬ 
thetic  method.8  But  after  George  Calixt 9  had  separated  ethics 
from  systematic  theology,  and  applied  the  analytic  method  of  inves¬ 
tigation  to  the  latter,19  John  Hulsemann ,n  John  Conrad  Dann - 


§  216.  The  Theology  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  151 


hauer ,12  Abraham  Calov ,13  John  Fr.  Konig,li  John  Andrew  Quen- 
stedt',16  John  William  Baier ,16  [ David  Hollaz ,17]  and  others,  followed 
more  or  less  the  course  which  he  had  adopted.  These  theologians 
may,  in  many  respects,  he  compared  to  the  scholastics  of  the 
preceding  period  ;  though  in  either  case  we  may  show  a  variety  of 
modifications  and  transitions.18 

1  Chemnitz,  born  at  Treuenbriezen,  a.  d.  1522,  Nov.  9th,  was  the  most 

learned  of  the  disciples  of  Melancthon,  on  whose  Loci  he  delivered  lectures 
in  the  University  of  Wittenberg.  He  took  part  in  the  composition  of  the 
Formula  Concordiae  (comp.  §  213),  as  well  as  in  the  reformation  of  Bruns¬ 
wick.  He  died  1586. — tie  wrote;  Loci  Theologici,  edit.  Op.  et  Stud. 
Poly  carp.  Lyseri  (Leyser.)  Francof.  1591,  4to.,  ibid.  1599,  1604,  iii.  8vo., 
Yiteb.  1615,  23,  90,  fol. — “  These  commentaries  are  written  with  a  great 
amount  of  learning . Accuracy  and  clearness  in  the  definition  of  doc¬ 

trines ,  mature  judgment,  prudent  choice  of  matter  and  proofs ,  and  order  in 
the  arrangement ,  are  everywhere  apparent  Heinrich ,  p.  274. — Examen 
Concilii  Tridentini,  Frankof.,  1615,  1707.  Concerning  the  other  dogmatic 
works  of  Chemnitz,  see  Heinrich ,  p.  276.  \Heprpe,  119.  Gass ,  51,  70.] 

2  Strigel  was  born  at  Kaufbeuren,  a.  d.  1524,  and  obtained  a  professor¬ 

ship  of  divinity  in  the  University  of  Jena,  a.  d.  1548.  On  the  controversy 
between  him  and  Flacius  see  the  preceding  §.  He  died  a.  d.  1569,  as  an 
exile  at  Heidelberg.  His  Loci  Theologici  were  edited,  Lab.  et  Studio  Christ. 
Pezelii,  Neap.  Nemet.  (Neustadt  on  the  Hardt),  1582-85,  ii.  4.  “  In  many 

'points  he  is  so  profound  and  edifying,  that  I  am  not  sure  whether  any  other 
theologian  of  that  period  has  surpassed  him  Semler,  in  his  edition  of 
Baumgarten’s  Glaubenslehre,  ii.  p.  158. — The  work  itself  is  scarce.  Comp. 
Otto,  De  Victorino  Strigelio,  liberioris  Mentis  in  Eccl.  Luth.  Yindice,  Jena., 
1843. 

s  Selnecker  was  born  a.  d.  1530,  at  Hersbruck  in  Franconia,  studied 
theology  in  the  University  of  Wittenberg,  was  chaplain  to  the  Prince  Elec¬ 
tor  of  Saxony,  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  Universities  of  Jena  and  Leipsic, 
superintendent  at  Wolfenblittel,  etc.,  and  died  a.  d.  1592.  He  also  took 
part  in  the  composition  of  the  Formula  Concordiae.  He  wrote :  Institu¬ 
tions  Christianae  Religionis.  Partes  iii.  Frankof.,  1573,  79,  8.  This  work 
was  the  first  system  of  dogmatic  theology  in  the  Lutheran  Church  which 
contained  the  so-called  Prolegomena  (on  the  Scriptures,  revelation,  etc.) 
Comp.  Gass,  51.  Heppe,  96. 

4  Hutter  was  born  a.  d.  1563,  at  Nellingen,  in  the  district  of  Ulm.  He 
was  surnamed  Lutherus  redivivus,  and  defended  the  Formula  Concordiae 
(Concordia  Concors.  Witeb.,  1614,  fol.)  in  opposition  to  Hospinian  (Concor¬ 
dia  Discors.  Tig.,  1607,  fol.)  By  order  of  Christian  II.,  Prince  Elector  of 
Saxony,  he  wrote  :  Compendium  Locorum  Theol.  ex  Sacra  Script,  et  Libro 
Concord,  collat.  Yit.,  1610;  new  edition  by  Twesten,  Berl.,  1855. — Loci 
Communes  Theol.  ex.  Sacris  Litteris  diligenter  eruti,  Yeterum  Patrum  Testi- 
moniis  passim  roborati,  et  conformati  ad  meth.  locc.  Mel.  Yiteb.,  1619,  53, 
61,  ss.  While  he  speaks  of  Melancthon  with  high  regard,  he  still  charges 


152 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


him  with — defectio  a  puritate  doctrinse  coelestis.  Corap.  Gass,  251.  Heppe, 
loo,  sq. 

B  Gerhard  was  born  a.  d.  1582,  at  Quedlinburg,  occupied  a  chair  of 
divinity  in  the  University  of  Jena,  and  died  1637,  Aug.  17th.  Hd  wrote : 
Loci  Theol.  cum  pro  adstruenda  veritate,  turn  pro  destruenda  quorum  vis 
contradicentium  falsitate,  per  theses  nervose,  solide  et  copiose  explicati. 
Jense,  1610-25,  ix.  Yoll.  4.  Denuo  edid.  variique  gen.  obss.  adjec.  J.  Fr. 
Cotta.  T.  i.-xx.  Tub.,  1762-89,  4. — Exegesis  s.  uberior  Explicatio  Articulo- 
rum  de  Scriptura  S.  de  Deo  et  de  Persona  Christi  in  Tomo  I.  Locorum 
(Cotta  T.  ii.  iii.) — J.  E.  Gerhard ,  Isagoge  Loc.  Theol.  in  qua  ea,  quae  in  ix. 
Tomis  uberius  sunt  exposita,  in  Compendium  redacta,  Jen.,  1658. — See  Hein¬ 
rich,  p.  314,  ss.  Semler,  p.  72,  ss.  Gass,  259,  sq. 

6  Heerbrand  was  Chancellor  in  Tubingen,  died  1600.  His  Comp.  Theol. 
Tub.,  1573  (ed.  by  Crus.  Wittenb.,  1582),  had  almost  symbolical  authority 
in  Wiirtemberg.  See  Gass,  77,  sq.  Heppe ,  124,  sq. 

7  Haffenreffer  was  born  1561,  and  died  1619,  as  Provost,  in  Stuttgard. 
His  Loci  Theologici  (Tubingen,  1691,  frequently  republished),  “  obtained  at 
once  the  widest  currency  in  upper  and  lower  Germany,  because  it  gave  in  the 
most  precise  and  intelligible  manner  the  doctrinal  points  of  the  Formula  Con¬ 
cordias,  which  was  what  they  wanted  to  hear  exclusively  in  the  Lutheran 
lecture-rooms  Heppe,  i.  129.  Gass,  78,  sq. 

— Besides  these  divines,  may  also  be  named,  Nicolas  Hemming,  Abdias 
Preetorius,  John  Wig  and ;  and  later  (in  seventeenth  century),  Erasmus 
Hrachmand  (Universae  Theologise  Systema,  etc.,  Ilafnise,  1633,  2  Tom.  4to), 
JBircherod,  Friedlieb,  e tc.  See  Semler,  p.  7],  80.  Heinrich,  p.  283,328. 
Gass  and  Heppe ,  ubi  supra. — On  the  relation  of  this  aftergrowth  (’E7 uyovoi) 
to  Melanethon,  see  Heinrich,  as  above,  p.  310,  sq.  Gass,  80. 

8  The  synthetic  method  starts  from  the  highest  principle,  God,  and  pro¬ 
ceeds  to  Man,  to  Christ,  to  Redemption,  till  it  comes  down  to  the  end  of  all 
things, 

9  Of  his  writings  the  following  are  of  a  doctrinal  character :  Apparatus 
in  Theol.  Stud.,  ed.  F.  U.  Calixt.  Helmst.,  1656,  1661.  Epitome  Theol. 
Gosh,  1619,  ed.  Gerh.  Titius,  66.  Epit.  Theol.  Mor.  Helmst.,  1634.  For 
further  particulars  see  below,  §  218.  On  his  analytic  method  compare 
Heinrich,  pp.  330,  331.  Gass,  303,  sq* 

10  The  analytic  method  begins  with  the  end  or  final  cause  (the  “  final 
method5’)  of  all  theology,  blessedness ;  and  hence  takes  the  opposite  course 
from  the  synthetic.  On  other,  complicated  methods,  see  Ease,  Hutterus 
Redi vivas,  p.  41,  sq.  Gass ,  p.  47. 

11  Htilsemann  was  born  a.  d.  1602,  at  Esens  in  East  Friesland  ;  held  sev 
eral  situations  in  Saxony,  was  superintendent  at  Meissen,  and  died  a.  d.  1661, 
— He  wrote  :  Breviarium  Tkologicum.  Viteb.,  1640,  8.  Extensio  Breviarii 
Theol.  Lips.,  1648,  55. —  Valent  Alberti,  Brev.  Theol.  Htilsemann.  enucl.  et 
auct.  Lips.,  1.687,  4.  His  opponents  called  his  style;  stilum  barbarum, 

*  Under  the  influence  of  Calixtus  were  the  divines  Joachim  Hildebrand ,  and  John 
Heinich  (died  1671),*  see  Gass,  311.  [On  Calixtus,  see  Gieseler ,  Church  Hist.  iv.  §  52, 
yg,  5.84—593,  Jlenke, , Calixt.  n,  seine  Zeit.  2,  8vo.,  1853—60;  Hundeshagen ,  in  Stud,  u. 
Xrit,  1S5£>;  .Christ. Remembrancer,  Load.,  1855.] 


§  216.  The  Theology  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  153 

* 

scholasticum,  liolcoticuin,  scoticum  ac  tenebrosum.  See  Scherzeri  Pro¬ 
legomena,  quoted  by  Heinrich ,  p.333.  TholucJc ,  Theolog.  Wittenb.  164,  sq. 
Gass ,  316. 

12  Dannhauer,  born  a.  d.  1603,  at  Kondringen,  in  the  county  of  Baden- 

Ilochberg,  was  professor  of  theology  in  the  university  of  Strassburg,  instructed 
Spener,  and  died  a.  d.  1666.  “  He  had  considerable  influence ,  chiefly  from 

his  profound  exegetical  lectures ,  delivered  in  a  popular  style  T  Hossbach 
(Spener.  i.  p.  17.)  He  wrote:  Hodosophia  Christiana  s.  Theol.  Posit,  in 
Methodum  redacta.  Argent,  1649,  66,  8,  Lips.,  1713,  4.  Spener  arranged 
this  work  in  the  form  of  tables,  Franc.,  1690,  4.  On  the  so-called  phe¬ 
nomenal  method  which  Dannhauer  adopted  (i.  e .,  the  symbolico-allegorical 
representation  of  man  under  the  figure  of  a  pilgrim,  etc.),  see  Hossbach , 
1.  c.  p.  23.  Semler,  p.  85.  Heinrich ,  p.  331. — In  addition  to  the  above 
work  he  composed  :  Christosophia,  1638,  and  Mysteriosophia,  1646.  See 
Gass ,  p.  318. 

13  Calov  was  born  a.  d.  1612,  at  Morungen,  filled  the  office  of  Superin¬ 

tendent  at  Wittenberg,  and  died  a.  d.  1686.  He  used  daily  to  offer  this 
prayer  :  Imple  me,  Deus,  odio  hsereticorum  !  He  wrote  :  Sy sterna  Locorum 
Theol.  e  Sacra  potiss.  Script,  et  Antiquitate ;  nec  non  Adversariorum  Con- 
fessione  Doctrinam,  Praxin  et  Controversarium  Fidei  cum  veterum  turn  im¬ 
primis  recentiorum  Pertractationem  luculentam  exhibens.  Yit.  1655-77, 
12  Voll.  4.  Theol.  Positiva  per  Definitiones,  Causas,  Adfectiones  et  Dis¬ 
tinctions  Locos  Theol.  universos . proponens,  seu  Compendium  System. 

Theol.  Yiteb.  1682,  8.  See  Tholuck ,  ubi  supra,  185,  and  particularly  Gassi 
332,  sq. 

14  Konig  was  born  a.  d.  1619,  at  Dresden,  and  died  a.  d.  1664,  at  Rostock, 
where  he  was  professor  of  theology.  He  wrote :  Theologia  Positiva  Acroa- 
matica  synoptice  tractata.  Rost.,  1664.  An  improved  edition  of  it  ap¬ 
peared  in  J.  Casp.  Haferungi  Colleg.  Thet.  Yiteb.,  1737,  8.  According  to 
Huddeus  (Isagoge,  p.  399),  it  is  a  mere  skeleton  of  a  system  of  doctrinal 
theology,  without  sap  or  force.  But  compare  Gass ,  321,  who  reckons  him 
among  the  “  dogmatic  virtuosi.” 

16  Quenstedt,  born  at  Quedlinberg,  a.  d.  1617,  was  professor  of  theology 
in  the  university  of  Wittenberg,  and  died  a.  d.  1688.  He  wrote  :  Theologia 

Didactico-polernica  s.  Systema  Theol.  in  duas  sectiones . divisum.  Yiteb., 

1685,  and  96,  Lips.,  1702,15,  fol.  Comp.  Semler,  p.  103,  ss.  Tholuck , 
214,  sq.  Gass ,  357,  sq. 

16  Baier  was  born  a.  d  1647,  at  Niirnberg,  and  died  a.  d.  1695,  at  Weimar, 
where  he  was  Superintendent.  He  composed  a  Compendium  Theol.  Posi¬ 
tive.  Jen.,  1686,  8.  An  improved  edition  of  it  was  edited  by  Reusch ,  1757. 
See  Gass ,  p.  353.  It  was  founded  upon  the  “Einleitung  in  die  Glaubens- 
lehre,”  and  some  shorter  doctrinal  treatises,  composed  by  John  Musceus  (who 
died  1681  at  Jena.) — Concerning  the  analytic  method  adopted  by  its  author, 
see  Heinrich ,  p.  348,  ss.  Gass ,  ubi  supra. 

17  \David  Hollaz,  was  pastor  at  Jacobshagen :  died  1730  :  he  wrote  Ex- 
amen  Theologicum  acroamaticura  Universam  Theologiam  thetico-polemicam 
compiectens,  1707  ;  edited  by  Teller ,  1750,  with  additions.] 

18  As,  e.  g.}  the  theologians  of  the  school  of  St.  Victor  manifested  a  lean- 


154 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


ing  towards  mysticism,  so  John  Gerhard ,  Dannhauer ,  and  others,  endea¬ 
vored  to  combine  strict  science  with  practical  piety.  On  the  scholasticism 
of  the  Lutheran  divines  in  the  seventeenth  century,  see  Tholuck,  Der  Geist 
d.  lutherischen  Theologen,  etc.,  p.  246,  sq.  On  the  needful  limitation  of 
the  notion  of  “  Protestant  Scholasticism,”  ibid.  p.  55,  sq.  On  the  grandeur 
of  the  Protestant  dogmatic  system,  see  Gass ,  Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Dogmatik, 
p.  6,  sq .,  who  says  that  it  was  “  more  profound  than  the  theology  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church ,  more  true  and  consistent  than  that  of  the  scholastics , 
and  more  scientifically  developed  and  honestly  outspoken  than  the  theories  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church .” 


§  217. 

LUTHERAN  MYSTICISM,  THEOSOPHY,  AND  ASCETICISM. 

Baur ,  Zur  Geschichte  der  Protest.  Mystik,  in  Zeller’s  Jahrbiicher,  1848,  1849.  Koack, 
Die  christliche  Mystik  seit  dem  Reformationszeitalter  (see  §  153).  Hambergsr, 
Stimmen  aus  dem  Heiligthum  d.  ckristliehen  Mystik  und  Theosophies,  Stuttg.,  1857. 
[R.  A.  Vaughan ,  Hours  with  the  Mystics,  2d  ed.  2  vols.,  1860.  Gieseler ,  Church 
History,  iv.  §  50.  Erhkam ,  Gesch.  der  Protest.  Secten.,  Hamb.,  1848.] 

As  the  scholasticism  of  the  middle  ages  had  been  counterbalanced 
by  mysticism,  so  the  new  scholastic  tendency  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
during  the  present  period,  was  accompanied  by  a  mystical  tendency, 
representing  the  deeper  interests  of  practical  religion.  And  further, 
as  we  had  there  to  distinguish  between  the  mysticism  of  the  sects, 
and  orthodox  mysticism  (though  its  advocates  spiritualized,  and 
sometimes  idealized,  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  by  internal  inter¬ 
pretation),  so  here  again  we  must  distinctly  separate  these  two  ten¬ 
dencies  from  each  other.  Even  in  the  lifetime  of  Luther,  Andreas 
Carlstadt /  Sebastian  Frank  *  and  John  Casper  Scliwenkfeld ,3  en¬ 
deavored  (in  a  manner  similar  to  that  adopted  by  the  prophets  of 
Zwickau,  and  the  Anabaptists)4  to  break  up  the  rigid  adherence  to 
the  letter  of  Scripture,  by  a  fantastic  idealism,  and  a  spiritualizing 
theology  running  over  into  pantheism.  In  later  times,  the  mystico- 
theosophic  writings  of  Theophrastus  Paracelsus ,6  Valentin  Weigel ,° 
and  Jacob  Bohme,7  on  the  one  hand,  exerted  a  quickening  influence, 
yet  on  the  other,  they  perplexed  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  threat¬ 
ened  to  destroy  the  unity  of  the  Church.  On  the  contrary,  the 
more  considerate  John  Arndf  and  his  followers,9  sought  to  intro¬ 
duce  “  True  Christianity”  into  all  the  relations  of  life,  and  to  revive, 
by  means  of  godly  sentiments  and  spiritual  exercises,  the  spirit  of 
true  religion,  which  had  been  buried  under  a  load  of  scholastic  defi¬ 
nitions.  J.  G.  Arnold  was  induced,  by  his  preference  for  mysticism, 
to  undertake  the  defence  of  the  heretical  sects  against  the  sentence 
which  the  orthodox  passed  upon  them.10 

1  On  Carlstadt ,  see  Gdbel}  Andreas  Bctdenstein  von  Carlstadt  nach  seinem 


§  218.  Lotheran  Mysticism. 


155 


Charakter  unci  Yerhaltniss  zu'  Luther,  in  the  Stuclien  und  Kritiken,  1841, 
s.  44,  sq .  Erbkam ,  Geschichte  der  Protestantischen  Secten  im  Zeitalter  der 
Reformation,  Hamb.,  1848,  s.  174,  sq.  *C.  F.  Jdger ,  Andreas  Bodenstein 
von  Carlstadt,  Stutt.,  1856.  Baur ,  ubi  supra  (Zeller’s  Jahrb.,  1848.)  Carl- 
stadt  belongs  here  only  in  part,  for  he  held  more  strictly  than  the  rest  of  the 
mystics  to  the  letter  of  Scripture. 

3  Sebastian  Frank  was  born  at  Donauworth,  in  the  beginning  of  the  six¬ 
teenth  century ;  died  in  1545.  His  chief  works  are  :  Weltbuch— Zeitbuch 
— Encomium  MoriEe — Spriichworter — Paradoxa.  Compare  Wackernagel , 
Proben  deutseher  Prosa,  i.  s.  319,  sq.  K.  Hagen ,  Geist  der  Reformation 
und  seiner  Gegensatze,  ii.  314,  sq.  SchenJcel ,  Wesen  des  Protest,  i.  136,  sq. 
ErbTcam ,  loc.  cit.  286,  sq.  Baur ,  loc.  cit.  p.  490,  sq.  “It  is  only  in  the 
most  recent  times  that  the  originality  of  Sebastian  Frank  has  been  particu¬ 
larly  recognised ,  and  that  a  place  has  been  assigned  him  among  those  men ,  in 
whose  varying  tendencies  are  found  the  elements  that  determine  the  character 
of  the  period  of  the  Reformation .”  [Hase's  Church  History,  New  York, 
ed.,  p.  436.] 

3  Schwenkfeld  was  born  a.  d.  1490,  at  Ossing,  in  Silesia,  and  died  1561. 
(Luther  called  him  Stenkfeld.)  Concerning  Schwenkfeld  and  his  friend 
Valentin  KrautwalJc ,  see  Planck ,  v.  i.  p.  89,  ss.,  and  compare  special  history 
of  doctrines.  See  also,  *G.  L.  Hahn ,  Schwenckfeldii  Sententia  de  Christi 
Persona  et  Opere  Exposita.  Vratislav.,  1847.  Erbkam ,  357,  sq.  Baur , 
502,  sq.  “  With  Schioenkfeld  we  come  first  into  the  real  sphere  of  Protes¬ 
tant  mysticism  ;  he ,  if  any  one  of  the  olden  time ,  is  the  representative  of  the 
Protestant ,  and  especially  of  the  Protestant  Lutheran ,  Mysticism .”  [Comp, 
especially  Gieseler ,  Church  Hist.  iv.  §  33.  Baur's  Dreieinigkeit,  iii.  219, 
244.  j Dorner,  Person  Christi,  ii.  573,  624.  Niedner's  Gesch.  d.  Kirche, 
673-677.] 

4  See  below  §  231.  Erbkam ,  loc.  cit.  479,  sq. 

6  His  proper  name  was  Philippus  Aureolus  Theophrastus  Bombastus 
Paracelsus  ab  Hohenheim  ;  he  was  a  native  of  Switzerland,  and  died  a.  d. 

A541.  His  works  were  published  at  Basle,  1585,  ss.,  xi.  4.  Compare 
H.  A.  Preu ,  die  Theologie  des  Theophrast.  Paracelsus,  Berlin,  1837,  8. 
M.  Carriere ,  Philosophische  Weltanschanung  der  Reformationszeit.,  Stuttg., 
1847.  [Gieseler,  Church  Hist.  iv.  566.  Tennemann's,  Gesch.  d.  Phil.  ix. 
205.  Ritter's  Gesch.  d.  Phil.  v.  517  ;  Christi.  Phil.  ii.  155,  sq.  Hagenbach , 
Yorlesungen  tiber  die  Reformation,  iii.  337,  sg'.] 

6  Weigel  was  born  A.  d.  1533,  at  Hayn,  in  Misnia,  and  died  1588,  at 
Tschoppau,  where  he  was  a  pastor.  His  writings  were  not  published  till 
after  his  death — viz.,  gtildener  Griff,  d.  i.  alle  Dinge  ohne  Irrthum  zu  erken- 
nan,  1616.  Erkenne  dich  selbst,  1618.  Kirchen  und  Hauspostill,  1618. .. 
Comp.  Arnolds  Kirchen  und  Ketzerhist.  ii.  vol.  xvii.  c.  17.  Walch,  Einlei- 
tung  in  Die  Religions  Streitigkeiten,  iv.  p.  1024-1065.  Planck,  Geschichte 
der  protestantischen  Theologie,  p.  72,  ss.  Hagenbach,  Yorlesungen  fiber 
die  Reformation,  iii,  p.  337,  ss.  [See  also  Gieseler,  Church  Hist.  iv.  567. 
Dorner's  Person  Christi,  ii.  224.  Baur,  Versohnungslehre,  463  ;  Dreieinig¬ 
keit,  iii.  257.  Ritter ,  Gesch.  d.  Philos,  vi.  77.  Niedner .  Gesch.  d.  Kirche, 


156 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


7 37,  sq.  L.  Pertz ,  Der  Weigelianismus,  in  the  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  hist.  Theol., 
1857.] 

7  Bohme  was  born  a.  d.  1575,  at  Altseidenburg,  in  Upper  Lansatia,  and 
lived  at  Gorlitz,  where  he  was  a  shoemaker;  died  1620.  His  writings  were 
edited  by  Gichtel ,  Amstel.,  1682,  1730,  6  vol.  8.  Schiebler ,  Leips.,  1831  ; 
6  Bde.  and  Stuttg.,  1835,  sq .,  5  Bde.,  with  an  account  of  his  life  by  Albert 
Von  Franckenberg.  Comp.  Wullen.  J.  Bohme’s  Leben  und  Lehre,  Stutt- 
gard,  1836,  8.  By  the  same  :  Bliithen  aus  J.  Bohmes  Mystik.  Stuttg.,  1838. 
A.  E.  Umbreit,  Jacob  Bohme,  Hiedelberg,  1835.  Baur ,  Gnosis,  p.  558,  ss. 
Hagenbach ,  Vorlesung.  tiber  die  Reform.  1.  c.  p.  345,  ss.  Baur ,  Zeller’s 
Jahrb.,  1850.  Hamberger ,  Die  Lehre  des  deutschen  Philosophen  J.  Bohme, 
Miinchen,  1844.  Carriere ,  ubi  supra,  609.  TholucJc ,  in  Zeitschrift  f. 
Christl.,  Wissenschaft,  1852,  No.  25,  sq.  Auberlen,  in  Herzog’s  Realency- 
clo)3.  ii.  265,  sq.  [AT.  A.  Fechner ,  Bohme’s  Leben  und  Schriften  (a  prize 
essay),  1857.  Hegel ,  Gesch.  d.  Phil.  iii.  296.  Bitter ,  Christl.  Philos,  ii. 

<  165,  sq.  A.  Peip ,  Jac.  Bohme,  der  Yorlaufer  christlicher  Wissenschaft, 
1860.  Life  by  Bialloblotzky,  in  the  Penny  Cyclopedia.  Schaff’s  Kirchen- 
freund,  1853.  Christian  Review,  July,  1854.  Works  transl.,  4  vols.,  fob, 
Lond.,  1764-81.  Ellistone  was  the  chief  translator,  and  Law  proposed  an¬ 
other  edition ;  see  Law’s  Animadversions  on  Dr.  Trapp.] 

9  Arndt  was  born  a.  d.  1555,  at  Ballenstadt,  in  the  duchy  of  Anhalt,  suf¬ 
fered  much  from  persecution,  filled  the  office  of  Superintendent  in  Celle,  and 
died  1621.  He  wrote:  Yier  Bucher  vom  wahren  Christenhum,  1605,  often 
reprinted  (which  were  combated  by  Luc.  Osiander)  ;  Paradiesgartlein  voll 
christlicher  Tugenden  ;  Evangelienpostille,  and  other  works.  Comp.  Freheri 
Theatr.  Yiror,  Eruditione  Claror.  p.  409.  Tzschirners  Memorabilien  iii.  1, 
Lpzg.,  1812.  Hagenbach,  Vorlesungen,  etc.,  1.  c.  p.  371,  ss.  M.  Goebel,  Gq sch. 
des  christl.  Lebens  in  der  rheinisch-westphal.  evang.  Kirche,  Coblenz,  1852,  ii. 
464,  sq.  H.  L.  Pertz,  De  Johanne  Arndio.  Hanov.,  1852,  4to.  SJGieseler^ 
Church  Hist.  iv.  573.  O.  Wehrhan's  Lebensgesch.  Joh&nn.  Arndt’s  Ham¬ 
burg,  1848.  Arndt’s  True  Christ,  transl.  by  Hoffmann,  Chambersb.,  1834.] 

9  Joach.  Lutkemann ,  Heinr.  Muller ,  Christian  Scriver ,  and  others.  The 
better  class  of  preachers,  and  especially  the  authors  of  spiritual  songs,  ex¬ 
erted  also  a  beneficial  influence  upon  the  religious  belief  of  the  people. 
Comp.  Hagenbach ,  Yorlesungen,  p.  163,  ss. 

10  Arnold  was  born  a.  d.  1665,  at  Annaberg,  and  died  1714  at  Perleburg, 
where  he  was  a  pastor. — He  wrote  :  Unparteiische  Kirchen  und  Ketzerhis- 
torie,  Frankf.,  1699,  fol.  Schafh.,  1740,  ss.,  3  vol.  fob — Wahre  Ausbildung 
des  inwendigen  Christenthums — erste  Liebe — geistliche  Frfahrungslehre,  and 
several  other  treatises.  See  Goebel,  as  above. 

Lutheran  mysticism  degenerated  especially  in  the  case  of  Quirinus  Kuhlmann  (1651-89), 
John  George  Gichtel  (1638-1710),  and  his  co-laborers  Breckling ,  Ueberfeldt ,  eta  Compare 
Hagenbach  Yorlesungen,  iv.  p.  328,  ss.  These  enthusiasts  are  of  no  importance  in  thi 
history  of  doctrines.  [Hase,  Church  History,  508.] 


§  218.  Reforming  Tendencies. 


157 


§  218. 

REFORMING  TENDENCIES.  JOHN  YALENTIN  ANDREW,  CALIXT, 

SPENER,  THOMASIUS. 

Not  the  mystics  alone,  but  also  theologians  of  common  sense  and 
sound  judgment,  having  thrown  off  the  yoke  of  the  theology  of  the 
schools,  united  with  those  of  a  more  pious  tendency,  for  the  purpose 
of  reforming  the  Church.  John  Valentin  Andrece  combated  with 
the  weapons  of  satire,  and  yet  with  due  earnestness,  both  the  cor¬ 
ruptions  of  the  schools  and  the  mysticism  of  his  age.1  George 
Calixt ,  guided  by  a  spirit  of  Christian  moderation,  endeavored  to 
reduce  the  doctrines  necessary  to  salvation  to  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
and  thus,  by  degrees,  to  effect  a  union  of  the  different  denomina¬ 
tions,  hut  exposed  himself,  in  consequence,  to  the  charge  of  Syncre¬ 
tism?  The  influence  which  he  exerted  upon  his  age  was  less 
positive  than  that  of  Philip  Jacob  Spener ,  whose  sermons,  writings, 
and  life,  were  in  this  respect,  of  great  importance.3  Proceeding 
from  the  central  point  of  Christian  experience,  and  resting  on 
the  basis  of  Scriptural  truth  which  he  had  practically  studied, 
he  equally  avoided  scholastic  subtilty  and  theosophic  fancies,  and 
was  animated  by  the  pure  and  glowing  mysticism  of  the  heart 
alone.  He,  as  well  as*  his  followers  (the  Pietists),  were  at  first 
attacked  with  rage  and  scorn,  but  nevertheless  imparted  a  most 
beneficial  impulse  to  their  age.  He  was  upheld  by  the  jurist  Chris¬ 
tian  Tliomasius ,  who  took  part  in  preparing  the  more  enlightened 
culture  of  a  new  .century,  rather,  however,  by  his  scientific  and  polit¬ 
ical  attainments,  than  by  profound  and  original  views  in  theology.4 

~  1  Valentin  Andrese  was  the  nephew  of  Jacob  Andrese  (who  was  one  of 
the  authors  of  the  Formula  Concordiae),  and  died  a.  d.  1654.  On  his  life, 
as  well  as  on  the  sect  of  the  Rosi crucians,  who  stand  in  close  connection 
with  the  history  of  mysticism,  see  Hossbach ,  Val.  Andrese  und  sein  Zeitalter, 
Berlin,  1819  ;  Also,  Vita  ab  ipso  conscripta,  Berol.,  1849  [ed.  F.  H.  Rhein- 
wald.  Niedner's  Gesch.  d.  Kirch e,  740,  sq.  Pabst ,  Andrew's  entlarvter 
Apap.,  1827.  Gieseleds  Church  History,  iv.  569,  sq.,  where  is  a  full  account 
of  the  “  Chymical  Marriage  of  Christian  Rosenkreutz,”  and  of  the  “Fama 
Fraternitatis.”  See  also,  Guhrauer  in  Niedner’s  Zeitschrift,  f.  d.  hist.  Theol- 
ogie,  1852,  Ueber  den  Verfasser,  Sinn  und  Zweck  der  Fama  Fraternitatis. 
The  Fama  and  Confessio  were  republished  at  Frankfort,  1827.  On  the 
Rosicrucians,  see  Figuier ,  L’Alchimie,  Paris,  1854,  chap.  v.  pp.  247-266  ; 
Notes  and  Queries,  Vol.  vii.  viii. 

2  Calixt  was  born  a.  d.  1586,  in  the  duchy  of  Holstein,  and  was  professor 
of  theology  in  the  University  of  Helmstadt.  His  works  are  mentioned 
§  214,  note  7.  Compare  *  Henke,  Calixts  Briefe.  Halle,  1833.  By  the 


158 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


same:  die  Univ.  Helmstadt  im  16,  Jahrh.,  Halle,  1833.  Planck,  Geschichte 
der  protestantischen  Theologie,  p.  90,  ss.  G .  W.  Gass,  Georg  Calixt  und 
der  Synkretismus,  Bresl.,  1846.  Schmid  Heinr.,  Geschichte  der  synkretis- 
tischen  Streitigkeiten  in  der  Zeit  des  Georg  Calixt.,  Erlang,  1846.  Gass 
says,  “  Calixt ,  to  a  certain  extent,  wished  to  maintain  a  Lutheran  Protestant¬ 
ism,  but  not  a  Protestant  Lutheranism  ;  he  sought  Protestanism  in  Luther¬ 
anism,  but  not  the  converse Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Dogmatik,  s.  308.  [Comp. 
Gieseler,  Church  Hist.  iv.  §  52,  pp.  584-593.  Baur,  d.  Calixtin.  Synkretis¬ 
mus,  in  the  Theol.  Jahrb.  (Tubing.)  Bd.  vii.  Henke ,  Calixtus  nnd  seine 
Zeit.  i.  ii.  1,  2,  Halle,  1853-60:  comp,  the  Christ*  Remembrancer,  Lond., 
1855.  Schweizer ,  Protest.  Central-Dogmen.  i.  171,  ii.  532.  Niedner,  Ge¬ 
schichte  d.  Christlichen  Kirche,  743-7.] 

3  Spener  was  born  a.  d.  1635,  at  Rappoldsweiler,  in  Alsatia.  Strassburg,- 
Frankfort,  Dresden,  and  Berlin,  were  successively  the  scenes  of  his  labors. 
He  was  a  prebendary  at  Cologne  on  the  Spree,  and  died  1705.  He  wrote  : 
Das  geistliche  Priesterthum.,  Frankfurt,  1677,  12,  and  other  editions. — Pia 
Desideria.,  Francof.,  1678,  12. — Theol.  Bedenken.,  Halle,  1700,  ss.,  4  voll. — 
Consilia  et  Judicia  Theol.  Frankof.,  1709,  iii.  4. — Letzte  Theol.  Bedenken., 
Halle,  1721,  iii.  4.  Hossbach ,  Spener  und  seine  Zeit.  Berlin,  1827,  ii.  8. — 
At  the  same  time  Aug.  Herm.  B\ancke  exerted  a  considerable  influence 
rather  on  the  life  of  Christians  than  on  systematic  theology.  Nevertheless 
the  pietistic  tendency  is  of  importance  in  the  history  of  doctrines,  on  the 
one  hand,  because  it  was  indifferent  to  all  scholastic  definitions  ;  on  the 
other,  because  it  laid  great  stress  upon  the  doctrines  concerning  sin,  repent¬ 
ance,  etc. ;  and  lastly,  on  account  of  the  peculiar  coloring  which  it  gave  to 
the  theology  of  the  evangelical  Church.  The  diligent  study  of  the  Bible, 
which  he  insisted  on,  could  not  but  produce  good  fruit.  See  Lllgen,  C.  F., 
Historia  Collegii  philobiblic!..  Lips.,  1836-40,  3  Progr.  [See  Rose  and 
Pusey,  on  German  Rationalism,  1835.  L.  Woods ,  in  Preface  to  his  Trans¬ 
lation  of  Knapp’s  Christian  Theology.  Tholuck ,  in  Princeton  Essays,  vol. 
i.  p.  530,  sg.] 

4  He  died  a.  d.  1728.  Comp.  Luden,  Thomasius  nach  seinen  Schicksalen 
und  Schriften,  Berlin,  1805. 


§  219.  ZWINGLE  AND  CALVIN. 


159 


II.  THE  REFORMED  CHURCH. 

§  219. 

ZWINGLE  AND  CALVIN. 

Hundeshagen ,  Die  Conflicts  des  Zuinglianismus,  Lutheranismus  und  Calvinismus  in  jler 
Berniscben  Landeskirche,  Bern.,  1842.  Al.  Schweizer,  Die  Glaubenslehre  der  Re¬ 
form.  Kirche  dargestellt,  2,  8vo.,  Zurich,  1844-7  ;  Ibid.,  Nachwort  zur  Glaubenslehre, 
in  Zeller’s  Jahrb.,  1848;  [Ibid.,  Protestant.  Centraldogmen,  2  Bde.,  Zurich,  1854.] 
Baur,  Princip  und  Charakter  des  Lehrbegriffs  der  Ref.  Kirche,  in  Zeller’s  Jahrb., 
1847.  Schneckeriburger ,  Reform.  Dogmatik  mit  Riicksicht  auf  Schweizer’s  Glaubensl., 
in  the  Stud,  und  Kritiken,  1848, 1st  and  3d,  Heft. ;  Ibid.,  Die  neueren  Verhandlungen 
betreffend  das  Princip  des  Ref.  Lehrbegriffs,  in  Zeller’s  Jahrb.,  1848;  [Ibid.  Zur 
Kirchlichen  Christologie,  Neue  Bearbeitung,  Pforzheim,  1848.]  Ebrard ,  Vindicise 
Theol.  Reform.  Erlangen,  1848.  Al.  Schweizer ,  Die  Synthese  des  Determinismus  und 
der  Preiheit  in  der  Reform.  Dogmatik  (against  Ebrard,  in  Zeller’s  Jahrb.,  1849). 
Ebrard ,  Das  Verhaltniss  der  Ref.  Dogmatik  zum  Determinismus,  Zurich,  1849.  Zel¬ 
ler,  Das  Theologische  System  Zwingli’s  (Tubing.  Jahrb.,  1853).  Gh.  Sigwart,  Ulrich 
Zwingli,  Stuttg.,  1835.  J.  G.  Scholten ,  Die  Lehre  der  ref.  Kirche  nach  ihren  Grund- 
satzen  aus  den  Quellen  dargestellt,  3  Aufl.  Lpz.,  1855.  Comp.  §  223.  [Zeller, 
Charakter  des  Zwingl.  Lehrbegriffs,  in  Theol.  Jahrb.,  1857.  Jdger,  in  Studien  und 
Kritiken,  1856.  J.  W.  Roder,  Der  Schweizer.  Reform.  Zwingli.  St.  Gallen,  1855. 
Stahl,  in  Luther.  Kirche  und  Union,  Berl.,  1859,  reviewed  by  Stier  and  Baxmann  in 
the  Deutsche  Zeitschrift,  Berlin,  1859.  Gieseler ,  Church  History,  iv.  §  35.  Heinrich 
Heppe,  Die  Dogmatik  der  evangel.  Reform.  Kirche,  aus  den  Quellen  Elberfeld,  1861.] 
* 

In  the  Swiss  cities  of  Gilarus,  Einsiedeln,  and  Zurich,  Ulric 
Zwingle  preached  the  pure  evangelical  doctrine,  and  combated  the 
abuses  of  the  Papacy,  independently  of  Luther.1  In  consequence  of 
a  difference  of  opinion  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sup¬ 
per,3  which  manifested  itself  as  soon  as  Luther's  views  became 
known  in  Switzerland,  Zwingle  and  the  other  Swiss  reformers  were 
compelled  to  adopt  their  own  course,  and  a  new  Church  was  formed, 
along  side  of  the  Lutheran,  based  on  peculiarities  of  its  own,  in 
respect  to  doctrinal  matters,  as  well  as  in  its  constitution  and  mode  of 
worship,  called,  by  way  of  distinction,  the  Reformed  Church,  though 
it  did  not  receive  this  appellation  until  a  later  period.3  Zwingle 
himself  propounded  the  principles  of  pure  evangelical  faith  in  sev¬ 
eral  writings,  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  beginning  of  a  system¬ 
atic  theology  of  the  Reformed  Church.4  But  it  was  reserved  for 
the  French  reformer,  John  Calvin ,6  after  the  death  of  Zwingle,  to 
compose  the  work  entitled  :  Institutio  Religionis  Christiance,  in 
which  those  principles  were  arranged  in  a  system  more  comprehen¬ 
sive,  well-arranged,  and  connected,  than  the  Loci  of  Melancthon.6 

1  He  was  born  a.  d.  1484,  Jan.  1st,  at  Wildhaus,  in  Toggenburg.  Con¬ 
cerning  his  life,  compare  the  biographies  composed  by  Oswald  Myconius , 


160 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


JVuscheler ,  Hess ,  Schuler ,  Hottinger  [transl.  by  A7.  (7.  Porter,  Harrisb., 
1850*] ;  Roder  [der  Schweizer  Ref.  Huldr.  Zwingl.  St.  Oallen,  1856]  ;  Chris- 
tojfel,  Ulr.  Zwing.  Leben  und  ausgewalilte  Schriften,  Elberfeld,  1857  [transl. 
by  John  Cochrane,  Edinb.,  1858.  Life,  by  Prof.  Robbins,  in  Bibl.  Sacra, 
Andov.,  vols.  viii.  xi.  Hess's  Life  transl.  by  Lucy  Aiken,  Lond,,  1812.] 
His  works  were  edited  by  Gualther,  Tig.,  1545,  ss.,  1581,  Tom.  iv.  fob,  and 
by  *  Schuler  and  Schulthess ,  Zwingli’s  Werke,  voi.  i.  and  ii.  in  German,  vol. 
iii.  v.  vi.  vii.  in  Latin.- — Leading  historical  points  in  the  Swiss  Reformation 
during  its  first  period  :  1.  Disputation  at  Zurich  (a.  d.  1523,  Jan.  29th.) — 
Zwingle’s  interpretation  of  the  articles,  and  his  reasons. — 2.  Disputation 
(Oct.  26th-28th.)  Zwingle’s  treatise  entitled  :  christenliche  Ynleitung. — 
Decree  of  the  magistracy  respecting  images,  the  mass,  etc. — Final  establish¬ 
ment  of  the  Reformation  at  Zurich.  Disputations  at  Baden  (1526)  and 
Berne  (1528.) — The  Reformation  of  Berne  ( Bernard  Haller ,  Sebastian  Meier , 
and  others.) — The  Reformation  of  Basle  (1529,  Oecolampadius.)  The  war 
of  Cappel. — The  death  of  Zwingle,  1531,  Oct.  11th. — For  further  particu¬ 
lars  see  Bullinger ,  Reformationsgeschichte  herausgeg.  von  Hottinger  and 
Vogeli.  iii.  Frauenf.,  1838.  J.J.  Hottinger ,  evangelische  Kirchengeschichte, 
Zurich,  1708,  iv.  (A  new  edition  by  Wirz-Kirchofer  was  published,  Zurich, 
1813-19.)  Johannes  von  Muller ,  Geschichte  der  schweizerischen  Eidgenos- 
senschaft,  fortgesetzt  von  J.  J.  Hottinger ,  Vol.  6  and  7.  Comp.  Gieseler,  iv. 
pp.  12, 13.  The  more  recent  writings  on  this  period,  by  Gobel,  Lange,  Goupp, 
Herzog,  Meyer,  reviewed  by  Ullmann ,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1843. 

s  See  the  special  history  of  doctrines  (on  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper). 

8  Theologians  are  still  divided  on  the  question,  as  to  what  constitutes  the 
peculiarity  of  the  Reformed  Church  (see  §  212,  note  3,  and  the  works  there 
referred  to).  According  to  Schweizer ,  the  principle  of  the  Reformed  theology, 
running  through  all  its  doctrinal  statements,  is  to  be  sought  in  the  attempt 
to  derive  all  salvation  and  all  that  leads  it,  absolutely  from  God  alone  (not 
from  anything  created) ;  with  which,  too,  is  connected  the  more  urgent 
emphasis  laid  on  Scripture  alone,  and  the  closer  relation  made  between  the 
law  and  the  gospel,  in  the  Calvinistic  system  (opposition  to  all  paganising, 
see  above  §  213).  Baur  sought  for  this  peculiarity  in  the  absoluteness  of 
God.  Schneclcenburger  especially  urges  the  Christological  element,  as  the  Re¬ 
formed  theology  makes  the-historical  side  more  prominent,  and  the  Lutheran 
the  speculative  aspects  of  Christology  (see  his  Christology,  p,  190,  note). 
However  it  may  be  with  these  statements,  it  is  at  any  rate  certain,  that  the 
differences,  which  it  is  the  office  of  dogmatic  science  to  search  out,  are  en- 
,  tirely  subordinate  in  comparison  with  the  essential  and  thorough  going 
opposition  between  Catholicism  and  Protestantism ;  and  it  would  only  im¬ 
pede  the  healthful  growth  of  Protestantism,  if  the  undeniable  differences 
should  be  so  exaggerated  as  to  make  out  an  irreconcileable  antagonism  among 
Protestants  themselves. — While  formerly  the  exact  distinction  between  the 
Lutheran  and  Reformed  systems  was  hardly  stated,  dogmatic  acumen  is  now 
in  danger  of  running  out  into  subtle  refinements.  The  times  recommend 
holding  to  that  in  which  they  agree.  On  the  shaping  of  the  Reformed 
theology  in  distinction  from  the  Lutheran,  see  Gass,  s.  82,  sq. 


§  219.  Zwingle  and  Calvin. 


161 


*  Luther  and  the  Lutherans  called  them  Sacramentarians,  enthusiasts,  etc. 
(afterwards  Calvinists).  It  was  in  France  that  the  name  “  religion  pretendue 
reformee”  took  its  rise.  \Heppe,  TJrsprung  und  Geschichte  der  Bezeich- 
nungen,  “  Reformirte”  und  “  Lutherisclie”  Kirche,  1859.] 

6  In  addition  to  the  polemical  writings,  sermons,  letters,  etc.,  of  Zwingle, 
we  may  mention  as  bearing  upon  systematic  theology  :  Commentarius  de 
Vera  et  Falsa  Religione  (it  was  addressed  to  Francis  I.)  Tigur.,  1525. — Fidei 
Ratio,  ad  Carol.  Imp.  Tig.  1530,  4.  Christianae  Fidei  brevis  et  clara  Exposi- 
tio,  ad  Regem  christ.  (ed.  Bullinger.)  Tig.,  1536.  On  Zwingle’s  importance 
as  a  systematic  theologian,  see  the  works  of  Zeller  and  Sigioart ;  also 
Gass ,  i.  91. 

6  He  was  born  at  Noyon,  in  Picardy,  a.  d.  1519,  July  10th,  and  died  at 
Geneva,  1564,  May  27th.  Concerning  his  life,  see  *Henry,  Leben  Calvins, 
Hamb.,  1835-45,  4  vol.  Bretschneider ,  Bildung  und  Geist  Calvins  und  der 
Genferkirche  (Reformations- Almanack,  1821).  [. Biographies  of  Calvin: 
Henry's  Life,  transl.  by  Stebbing,  2  vols.,  Lond.  and  N.  Y.,  1854;  Beza's 
Life  of  C.  transl.  by  Gibson ,  Phil.,  1836  ;  Dyer ;  T.  Smyth ,  1835  ;  Audin , 
(Rom.  Cath.)  from  the  French  (3d  ed.  1845),  Louisville;  M.  Haag ,  in  La 
France  Protestante  ;  Robbins,  in  Bib.  Sacra,  ii.,  iii. ;  Kitto's  Journal,  vols. 
iii.,  vii. ;  Deutscher  Kirchenfreund,  Phil.,  1857;  Christian  Examiner,  1860; 
New  American  Encyclopedia.  Correspondence,  ed.  by  Bonner,  transl., 
3  vols.,  Edinb.  and  Phil.;  Life  and  Selections  from  his  writings  by  Stdhelin, 
1861,  in  Hagenbach’s  Leben  und  Schriften  der  Vater  der  Reformirten 
Kirche.  British  and  Foreign  Quarterly  Review,  Edinburgh,  I860.] 

7  Christianae  Religionis  Institutio,  totam  fere  pietatis  cummam,  et  quic- 
quid  est  in  doctrina  salutis  cognitu  necessarium,  complectens :  omnibus 
pietatis  studiosis  lectu  dignissimum  opus  (the  preface  was  addressed  to 
Francis  I).  It  was  composed  at  Basle,  a.  d.  1535.  Only  the  edition  of 
1536  (published  in  Basle  by  Thomas  Plater)  is  extant  at  present  as  the  first : 
but  it  was  undoubtedly  preceded  by  an  anonymous  edition  written  in  French 
(see  Henry,  i.  p.  102,  ss.) — The  edition  of  Basle  was  followed  by  those  of 
Strasburg  (published  by  Rihelius),  1539  (some  copies  under  the  name  AU 
cuinus ),  1543,  45,  and  Geneva,  1550,  53,  54. — An  entirely  new  edition  ap¬ 
peared,  1559,  at  Geneva  (published  by  Robert  Stephanus),  from  which  the  later 
editions  were  reprinted.  Comp.  Henry,  1.  c.  p.  286,  ss.,  and  the  opinions  of 
Bretschneider  and  Krummacher,  which  he  cites.  The  German  translation 
of  Bretschneider  appeared  1823,  at  Elberfeld. — In  addition  to  his  Institutio, 
Calvin  composed  many  other  doctrinal  and  exegetical  works,  which  will  be 
mentioned  in  the  special  history  of  doctrines. — The  complete  works  of  Cal¬ 
vin  were  published,  Geneva,  1617,  xii.  fob  Amst.,  1671,  (1677),  ix.  fol. 
Comp,  also  the  Anecdota  edited  by  Bretschneider,  Lips.,  1835  (from  the 
library  of  Gotha).  See  Gass,  i.  99.  [His  whole  works,  transl.,  Edbg.,  51 
vols.,  completed,  1855.  His  Institutes,  frequent  English  editions  (Allen) ; 
Phil.  Presb.  Board,  in  2  vols.  New  Test.  Comm.,  and  Institutes,  ed.  Tholuck, 
Halle.  A  French  transl.  of  the  Institutes,  reprinted  in  Paris,  1859;  new 
edition  of  his  Comm,  on  New  Test.,  in  French.] 

11 


162 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


§  220. 

THE  SYMBOLICAL  BOOKS  OF  THE  REFORMED  CHURCH. 

Compare  the  collections  mentioned  vol.  i.  §  13.  [The  collections  of  Augusti ,  1828  ;  Mess, 
1830;  Niemeyer,  1840;  Sylloge  Confess.,  Oxon.,  1821.  Harmony  of  Confess.,  1586, 
1846.  E.  G-.  A.  Bockell,  Bekenntnisschriften,  Leipz.,  1847.  Heppe ,  Die  Bekenn- 
twisschriften  d.  reform.  Kirche  Deutschlands,  1860.  Helvetic  Confess.,  by  Trechsel , 
in  Herzog’s  Realencyclopadie.] 

The  different  mode  of  development  of  the  Eeformed  Church  on 
the  one  side,  and  of  the  Lutheran  Reformation  in  Germany  on  the 
other/  accounts  for  the  difference  in  the  character  of  their  symbol¬ 
ical  writings.  In  the  case  of  the  Eeformed  Church  they  were  less 
complete  in  themselves,  being  at  first  restricted  to  confessions  of  faith 
drawn  up  by  individuals,  or  in  separate  localities,  and  only  by  degrees 
coming  into  general  use  as  representations  of  the  doctrines  held  by 
the  Church.  Nor  should  we  overlook  the  evident  difference  between 
the  characters  of  Zwingle  and  Calvin.1 2 3  Hence  in  forming  a  more 
precise  estimate  about  the  doctrines,  it  is  important  to  make  a  dis¬ 
tinction  between  those  symbolical  writings  which  were  composed 
before ,  and  those  after,  the  influence  of  Calvin  was  felt.3  From 
what  has  already  been  said,  it  follows  that  we  are  not  to  expect  a 
definitely  limited  number  of  Calvinistic  symbolical  writings,  inas¬ 
much  as  only  some  of  them  acquired  general  authority  in  the 
Eeformed  Church,  though  not  all  in  the  same  degree  ;  while  the 
importance  of  others  was  limited  to  certain  localities,4  or  to  indi¬ 
viduals,5  or  to  certain  periods  at  the  expiration  of  which  they  lost 
their  authority.6 

1  Compare  Hagenbach ,  Vorlesungen  uber  Wesen  und  Geschichte  der 
Reformation  ii.  p.  98,  p.  103,  ss.  Schweizer ,  ubi  supra,  s.  7,  sq.  [Heppe, 
Dogmatik  d.  ref.  Kirche.] 

2  As  regards  his  personal  character,  Zwingle  probably  had  far  more  of 
Luther  in  him  than  Calvin,  while  the  latter  is  rather  to  be  compared  with 
Melancthon  (at  least  as  regards  his  scientific  attainments  and  writings).  Yet 
we  must  not  exaggerate  the  doctrinal  differences  between  Calvin  and  Zwin¬ 
gle  (see  the  special  history  of  doctrines.)  [See  the  works  of  Zeller ,  Stahl , 
and  Sigwart ,  ubi  supra.] 

3  Compare  Winer,  pp.  18  and  19  of  his  Comp.  Darstellung. 

4  E .  g.  the  First  Confession  of  Basle.  Nor  were  the  Confessions  of  different 
countries  (such  as  the  Gallicana,  Anglicana,  Scotica,  Belgica,  Marchica,  etc.), 

in  the  first  instance,  adopted  by  any  but  the  Protestants  of  the  respective 
countries,  though  the  principles  contained  in  them  were  tacitly  recognised  in 
other  Protestant  countries,  and  sometimes  signed  by  their  representatives. 

6  This  was  the  case  with  the  said  Fidei  Ratio  of  Zwingle,  as  well  as  with 
his  Clara  et  Brevis  Expositio;  comp.  Winer,  p.  18.  On  the  other  hand,  the 


§  221.  Symbols  of  the  Reformed  Church. 


163 


private  confession  of  Bullinger  obtained  such  authority,  as  to  become  the 
second  Confessio  Helvetica ;  the  private  confession  of  Guido  de  Bres  stood 
in  the  same  relation  to  the  Confessio  Belgica.  See  §  222,  notes  4  and  9. 
[Comp.  Niemeyer ,  Col  lectio  Confess.] 

6  Thus  the  Confessio  Tetrapolitana,  which  fell  into  oblivion,  the  second 
Confessio  of  Basle  (the  first  Confessio  Helvetica  1536),  the  Formula  Con¬ 
sensus,  and  several  others ;  see  the  subsequent  sections. 


§  221. 

A.  SYMBOLICAL  WHITINGS  PRIOR  TO  THE  TIME  OF  CALVIN. 

Esclier ,  in  the  Encyclopaedia  published  by  Ersch  and  Gruber,  2d  Section,  Vol.  v.  p.  223, 
ss.  [Niemeyer,  ubi  supra.  Heppe ,  ubi  supra.  Hall's  Harmony  Of  Confessions ;  In¬ 
troduction.] 

As  early  as  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  the  four  cities  of  Strasburg , 
Constance ,  Memmingen ,  and  Lindau ,  in  Upper  Germany,  which 
were  favorably  disposed  to  the  doctrines  of  Zwingle,  presented  a 
separate  confession  of  faith,  which  is  on  that  account  called  Con¬ 
fessio  Tetrapolitana  (or  sometimes  Conf.  Argentinensis,  Suevica) 
and  Zwingle  also  presented  a  statement  of  his  faith  to  the  Emperor 
Charles  V.1 2  The  Church  of  Basle  gave  (a.  d.  1534)  the  first  pub¬ 
lic  testimony  of  its  evangelical  faith  by  the  publication  of  a  creed, 
which  was  also  adopted  in  Miilhausen  (Confessio  Basiliensis  I., 
Miilhausana).3  The  continuance  of  the  controversy  respecting  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  the  efforts  made  by  Bucer  and  others  to  restore 
peace,  gave  rise  to  the  Second  Confession  of  Basle ,  or  the  First 
Confessio  Helvetica ,  which  was  drawn  up  A.  d.  1536,  signed  by 
various  Swiss  cities,  and  transmitted  to  the  Lutheran  theologians 
then  assembled  at  Smalcald.4 

1  It  was  drawn  up  by  M.  Bucer ,  and  published  a.  d.,  1531,  4to.,  both  in 
German  and  Latin.  German  editions  of  it  also  appeared,  Neustadt,  on  the 
Hardt,  1580,  and  Zweibrticken  (Deux  Ponts),  1604,  4  to*  It  consists  of  23 
articles.  The  18th  article,  concerning  the  Lord’s  Supper,  differs  but  little 
from  the  Confessio  Augustana  (see  the  special  history  of  doctrines).  Planck, 
iii.  1,  p.  83,  ss. — The  Latin  text  is  given  in  the  Corpus  et  Synt.,  i.  p.  (215,  ss.), 
173,  ss.,  and  by  Augusti,  p.  327.  Comp.  Winer,  1.  c.,  and  Wernsdorf  His- 
toria  Confess.  Tetrapol.  Vite.,  1721,  4.  [Also  in  HalVs  Harmony,  and 
Niemeyer ,  pp.  740-770.]  The  four  cities  afterwards,  at  the  Schweinfurt 
Convention,  subscribed  the  Augsburg  Confession.  See  Heppe ,  Confessionelle 
Entwicklung,  72. 

2  Comp.  §  219,  note  4.  Winer,  1.  c.  [Niemeyer,  in  his  collection,  gives 

Articuli  sive  Conclusiones  LXYII.  H.  Zwinglii,  with  the  Theses  Ber- 

nenses  appended,  pp.  3-15  ;  Z.’s  Fidei  Ratio,  pp.  17-35  ;  and  his  Exposi- 
tio,  pp.  36-77.] 


I 


164  Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 

3  “  Bekanntlinuss  vnsres  heyligen  Christenlichen  Gloubens  wie  es  die 
kylch  zu  Basel  haldt”  (witli  the  motto :  Corde  creditur  ad  justitiam,  ore 
autem  fit  confessio  ad  salutem.  Rom.  x.),  in  12  articles  ;  it  was  founded  upon 
a  sketch  drawn  up  by  Oecolampadius  (see  Hagenbach ,  Geschichte  der  Basler 
Confession.  Basle,  182V.  Appendix  A.)  ;  the  German  copy  of  it  is  given, 
ibid.  p.  3V,  ss.,  the  Latin  in  Corpus  et  Synt.  i.  (93),  72,  ss.  Augusti ,  p. 
103,  ss. 

4  It  was  composed  at  a  synod  in  Basle,  1536,  by  theologians  deputed  by 

the  cities  Zurich,  Berne,  Basle,  Schafhausen,  St.  Gallen,  Mtilhausen,  and 
Biel  (drawn  up  by  H.  Bullinger,  Oswald  Myconius,  Simon  Gryneaus,  Leo 
Judse,  and  Casper  Grosmann),  with  the  assistance  of  Bucer  and  Capito,  the 
delegates  from  Strasburg. — On  the  cause  and  origin  of  the  said  confession, 
see  *Kirchofer ,  Oswald  Myconius,  Zurich,  1813,  p.  271-316.  Hess,  Lebens- 
geschichte  Heinrich  Bullingers,  vol.  i.  p.  199,  ss.,  21 7,  ss.  JEscher ,  1.  c. 
On  the  relation  in  which  it  stood  to  the  first  confession  of  Basle,  see  Hagen - 
bach ,  Geschichte  der  Basler  Confession,  p.  67.  [ Niemeyer ,  pp.  78-122.] 


§  222. 

B.  SYMBOLICAL  WRITINGS  UNDER  THE  INFLUENCE  OF  CALVIN. 

The  Church  of  Geneva  having  been  at  first  founded  upon  the 
basis  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine,  independently  of  the  Church  of 
Zurich,  was  brought  into  closer  connection  with  it  (a.  d.  1549)  by 
means  of  the  Consensus  Tigurinus  (which  had  reference  to  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Lord's  Supper);1  while  the  doctrine  of  predestination, 
more  fully  developed  by  Calvin,  was  established  in  the  Consensus 
Genevensis  (a.  d.  1552).2  But  it  was  not  until  Frederick  III., 
Prince  Elector  of  the  Palatinate,  had  joined  the  Reformed  Church, 
that  symbols  were  adopted  which  bound  the  Churches  more  closely 
together.  These  were,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Catechism  of  Heidel¬ 
berg  (a.  d.  1562),  drawn  up  by  Caspar  Olevianus  and  Zacharias 
Ursinus  ;3  on  the  other,  the  Second  Confessio  Helvetica ,  composed 
by  Bullinger,  and  published  at  the  request  of  the  Prince  Elector, 
a.  d.  1564.4  The  principles  contained  in  them  are  also  set  forth 
more  or  less  distinctly  in  the  other  Reformed  creeds,  e.  g.  in  the 
Confessio  Gallicana ,5  Anglicana*  Scoticana ,7  Hungarica  (Czen- 
gerina),8  Belgica?  the  Confessio  Sigismundi  (Brandenburgica, 
Marchica),10  the  Catechismus  Genevensis ,“  the  Declaratio  Tho - 
runensisf  etc.  And  lastly,  the  controversies  carried  on  between 
the  different  sections  of  the  Reformed  Church  (especially  concerning 
the  doctrine  of  predestination),13  showed  the  necessity  of  symbolical 
definitions  similar  to  those  contained  in  the  Formula  Concordice  of 
the  Lutheran  Church.  Such  were  the  Decrees  of  the  Synod  of 
Dort  (a.  d.  1618), 14  and  the  Formula  Consensus  drawn  up  in  Swit¬ 
zerland.16 


§  222.  Symbols  of  the  Beformed  Church. 


165 


Consensio  Mutua  in  Re  Sacramentaria  Ministror.  Tigur.  et  J.  Calvini, 
consisting  of  36  articles,  in  Calvini  Opp.  viii.  p.  648,  ss.,  and  in  his  Tract. 
Theolog.  (Geneva,  1611,  Amst.,  1667,  fol.)  It  was  separately  printed,  1554, 
by  Robert  Stephan.  Winer ,  p.  19.  Comp.  Hess,  Lebensgeschichte  Hein¬ 
rich  Bullingers,  ii.  p.  15-20.  Henry ,  Leben  Calvins,  ii.  473,  note  and  ap¬ 
pendix  181.  “  Calvin's  spirit  showed  itself  in  such  a  way  in  relation  to 

the  Swiss  type  of  theology,  and  to  the  German- Luther  an  form ,  that  he 
was  able  to  develop  the  former,  freeing  it  from  what  was  rude  and  imma¬ 
ture,  without  merging  it  in  the  latter Gass,  Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Dogmatik,  i. 
126.  \Niemeyer,  loc.  cit.  190-217.] 

2  De  seterna  Dei  Prsedestinatione,  qua  in  salutem  alios  ex  hominibus 
elegit,  alios  suo  exitio  reliquit,  it.  de  providentia,  qua  res  hum  anas  gubernat, 
Consensus  pastorum  Genevensis  ecclesise,  a  J.  Calvino  expositus.  Genev., 
1552,  8.  (in  Opp.  vii.  688,  ss.,  and  in  vol.  viii.  of  the  Dutch  edition,  p.  593, 
ss. ;  Tract.  Theol.,  p.  688.)  On  the  (erroneous)  statement  of  Planck  and 
Marheineke,  that  this  Consensus  had  also  been  adopted  by  the  citizens 
of  Zurich,  see  Escher,  1.  c.  Hagenbach,  Geschichte  der  Basler  Confess,  p. 
83,  and  Winer,  p.  19.  Henry,  ii.  42.  \Niemeyer,  218-310.] 

3  Its  German  title  is :  Christlicher  Underricht,  wie  der  in  Kirchen  und 
Schulen  der  churf.  Pfalz  getrieben  wirdt  ( i .  e.  Christian  instruction,  as  im¬ 
parted  in  the  churches  and  schools  of  the  Palatinate).  It  was  also  called 
Catech.  Palatinus,  the  Palatine  Catechism.  Joshua  Lagus  and  Lambert 
Ludolph  Pithopceus  translated  it  into  Latin.  An  edition,  which  contained 
both  the  Latin  and  the  German,  appeared,  Heidelberg,  1563,  8.  In  later 
times  it  was  translated  into  almost  all  modern  languages,  and  very  frequently 
commented  upon  :  e.  g.,  by  H.  Alting ;  see  the  edition  of  E.  A.  Lewald, 
Heidelb.,  1841.  It  consists  of  three  principal  parts:  1.  Concerning  the 
misery  of  man  in  consequence  of  sin ;  2.  Concerning  the  redemption  from 
that  state  ;  and,  3.  Concerning  man’s  gratitude  for  that  redemption.  It  .is 
divided  into  129  questions.  (The  80th  question  concerning  the  mass  was 
omitted  in  many  editions.)  Comp.  Simon  von  Alpen,  Geschichte  und 
Literatur  des  Heidelberg  Katechismus  Frankf.  a.  M.,  1810,  8.  Reinacker 
(in  the  Allgemeine  Encyclopaedic  2d  sect.,  4th  part.)  Beckhaus  in  Illgens 
historische  Zeitschrift,  viii.  2,  p.  39,  and  Augusti  (see  p.  10.)  Seisen ,  Gesch. 
der  Reformation  in  Heidelb.  bis  zur  Abfassung  des  Heidelb.  Katechismus, 
Bern.,  1848.  Sudhoff,  der  Heidelb.  Kat.  Creuznach,  1851  ;  ibid.,  Fester 
Grund  christ.  Lehre,  ein  Htilfsbuch  zum  Heidelb.  Kat.  (drawn  up  from 
the  German  writings  of  Caspar  Olevianus,  with  dissertations  by  the  author), 
Frankf.  a.  M.,  1854.  \Niemeyer  gives  both  the  German  and  the  Latin  form, 
pp.  390-461.  English  version  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  of  North  America,  Appendix,  pp.  3-40.  The  literature  of  the 
Heidelb.  Catechism,  Mercersb.  Quarterly,  Oct.  1860;  on  English  Versions, 
ibid.,  Jan.,  1861.  In  England  an  edition,  1850,  with  bibliographical  no¬ 
tices  by  Rev.  A.  S.  Thelwall. — J.  W.  Nevin,  History  and  Genius  of  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  Chambersburg,  1847.  The  Catechism  was  intro¬ 
duced  in  various  parts  of  Switzerland  (St.  Gall.,  Zurich) ;  in  Hungary  and 
Poland;  in  most  of  the  German  Reformed  Churches;  in  the  Netherlands, 
by  the  Synod  of  Wesel,  1688,  of  Dort,  1574  and  1618;  in  the  Dutch 


166 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Reformed,  and  German  Reformed  Churches  of  America — of  the  latter  it  is 
the  only  symbolical  book.  On  Olevianus  and  Ursinus ,  see  Sudhoff,  in 
Hagenbach’s  Leben  und  Schriften  d.  Vater  der  reformirten  Kirche,  Bd.  viii. 
1857  ;  he  shows  that  this  Catechism  was  on  the  basis  of  those  of  Calvin  and 
a  Lasco.  On  the  different  early  editions  of  the  Catechism,  on  Qu.  80,  etc., 
see  Niemeyer ,  Praefatio,  lvii.,  sg.] 

4  Confessio  Helvetica  Posterior  (it  was  also  called :  Confessio  et  Expositio 
brevis  et  simplex  sincerae  Religionis  Christianse).  At  the  request  of  Fred¬ 
erick  III.,  Prince  Elector  of  the  Palatinate  (1564),  it  was  edited  by  Bul- 
linger,  first  in  Latin  (1566),  and  afterwards  in  a  German  translation  made  by 
the  author  himself.  It  has  been  often  republished  :  by  Kindler ,  1825,  8, 
and  by  *0.  F.  Fritzsche ,  Tur.,  1839  (with  Prolegomena.)  Compare  Fscher , 
1.  c.  It  has  30  chapters.  It  was  sanctioned  not  only  in  Switzerland,*  but 
also  in  Germany  (in  the  Palatinate),  and  Scotland,  as  well  as  by  the  Polish, 
Hungarian,  and  French  Reformed  churches.  It  was  translated  into  French 
by  Theodore  Beza,  Geneva,  1566,  8,  and  by  Cellerier ,  ibid.,  1819,  8. 
[ Niemeyer ,  pp.  466-536.] 

5  It  consisted  of  40  articles.  It  was  set  forth  and  sanctioned,  under  the 
influence  of  the  preacher  Chaudieu,  by  the  Synod  of  Paris,  a.  d.  1559,  pre¬ 
sented  first  to  Francis  II.,  a.  d.  1560,  and  afterwards  to  Charles  IX.,  at 
Poissy,  by  Beza,  a.  d.  1561,  and  confirmed  by  Henry  IV.  and  his  mother,  at 
the  Synod  of  Rochelle,  1571.  A  Latin  translation  of  it  appeared,  1566. 
Comp.  Corp.  et  Synt.  i.  p.  (99)  77,  ss. ;  Augusti,  p.  110,  ss.  A  shorter  Con¬ 
fession  in  18  articles  was  handed  in  to  Henry  1Y. ;  see  Henry ,  Leben  Cal¬ 
vins,  iii.  469,  note.  It  is  a  different  work  from  that  which  was  published  at 
Heidelberg,  1566,  8,  under  the  title  :  Confession  und  Kurze  Bekanntnuss 
des  Glaubens  der  reformirten  Kirchen  in  Frankreich  (i.  e .  a  Creed  and  short 
Confession  of  Faith  adopted  by  the  French  Reformed  Churches),  which  was 
intended  to  be  given  to  Maximilian  II.,  and  the  estates  of  the  German  Em¬ 
pire  on  the  day  of  election.  For  further  particulars,  see  Winer,  p.  19.  [See 
also,  De  Felice,  Histoire  des  Protestants  de  la  France ;  transl.  by  Lobdell, 
X.  Y.,  1851 ;  Merle  d’Aubigne ;  Puaux ,  Hist,  de  la  Ref.  Frang.,  Tom.  iv. 
1860  ;  Soldan ,  Gesch.  des  Protest,  in  Frankreich,  2,  Leips.,  1855.] 

8  Commonly  called  the  XXXIX.  (at  first  XLII.)  Articles,  drawn  up  by 
Cranmer  and  Ridley  in  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.  (a.  d.  1551),  re¬ 
vised  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  confirmed  1562,  by  a  Synod  at 
London.  They  were  originally  published  under  the  title  :  Articuli,  de 
quibus  convenit  inter  Archiepiscopos  et  Episcopos  utriusque  Provincial  et 
Clerum  universum  in  Synodo,  Londini  anno  1562,  secundum  computationem 
Ecclesiae  Anglicanae,  ad  tollendam  opinionum  dissensionem,  et  consensum  in 
vera  rel.  firmandum;  editi  auctoritate  serenissimae  Reginae,  1571.  The 
English  edition  is  given  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  the  Latin  in  Corp. 
et  Synt.  i.?p.  (125)  99,  ss.  Augusti,  p.  126,  ss.  A  Church  Catechism  was 
composed  by  John  Poinet  (1553)  in  four  sections,  by  order  of  King  Edward 
YI.  Comp.  Winer,  p.  22.  Marsh ,  Bp.  [Comparative  View  of  the  Churches 

*  Only  in  Basle  it  was  not  received  until  a  later  period ;  this  delay  was  occasioned  by 
the  Crypto-Calvinistic  movements  of  Sulzer :  see  Hagenbarh,  Gesch.  d.  Confess. 


§  222.  Theology  of  the  Reformed  Church. 


167 


of  England  and  Rome,  1814,  1841.]  Germ,  transl.  by  F.  Eichel ,  Grimma, 
1848.  [CAs.  Hardwick ,  Hist,  of  Articles  of  Religion  (documents  from 
1536  to  1615)  ;  new  ed.,  1859.  Burnet ,  Welchman ,  1692,  and  Browne  on 
the  XXXIX.  Articles.  S hype's  Annals.  E.  Cardwell ,  Hist,  of  Conferences 
on  Book  of  Prayer  (1558-1690),  3d  ed.,  1849  ;  ibid.,  Documentary  Annals 
of  Church  of  England,  1546-1716,  2  vols.,  1843  ;  Formularies  of  Faith,  put 
forth  in  the  Reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  Three  Primers,  put  forth  in  the 
same  reign  ;  Collection  of  Articles,  etc.  Dean  Nowell's  Catechism,  1572, 
new  ed.  by  W.  Jacobson.  Sparroiv's  Hist,  of  Articles,  Injunction,  etc.,  4to., 
1684,  1846;  ibid.,  Rationale  upon  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  1724. 
E.  Bulley,  Tabular  View  of  Variations  in  the  Communion  and  Baptismal 
Offices  of  the  Church  of  England,  1540  to  1662,  Oxf.,  1842.  The  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  is  to  be  taken  with  the  XXXIX.  Articles,  in  estimating  the 
doctrinal  position  of  the  Church  of  England.  Besides  the  above  works,  see 
Wheatley,  Rational  Illustration  of  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  1720,  1846  ; 
Shepherd,  2  vols.,  1801;  Thos.  Lathbury,  Hist,  of  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
2d  ed.,  1859;  Procter,  1857. — The  Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England, 
1st  Book,  1547;  2d  Book,  1563;  edited  by  Prof.  Corrie ,  Camb.,  1850. — 
Gibson,  Codex  Juris.  Ecclesiastici  Anglicani,  2  fob,  1761. — First  Prayer 
Book,  1549;  revised '  1552 ;  XLII.  Articles,  1552-3,  by  Cranmer,  not 
adopted  by  Convocation — several  of  the  articles  from  Augsb.  Confession ; 
XXXIX.  Articles,  1552,  by  Alp.  Parker,  making  use  of  Wurtemberg  Confes¬ 
sion;  altered  to  XXXVIII.  in  1563;  in  1571  restored  to  XXXIX.  and  made 
binding.  The  XXXIX.  Articles  were  ratified  by  the  Protest.  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States ;  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  revised  under 
direction  of  the  First  General  Convocation,  Phila.,  1786  (omitting  Nicene  and 
Athanasian  creeds,  absolution,  baptismal  regeneration,  etc.),  but  nearly  all 
restored  (excepting  the  Athanasian  creed  and  absolution  in  visitation  of  the 
sick),  in  consequence  of  the  objections  of  the  English  bishops.] 

7  It  was  published,  a.  d.  1560,  and  consisted  of  25  articles.  Its  principal 
author  was  the  Scotch  Reformer  John  Knox  (his  views  on  the  doctrine  of 
predestination  were  less  Calvinistic  than  those  on  the  Lord  s  Supper).  Corpus 
et  Syntagma  i.  (137)  p.  109,  ss.  Augusti,  p.  143,  ss.  Another  confession  from 
the  year  1581  is  appended.  Different  is  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  1643.  (Cantabr.,  1659,  8 ;  Edinb.,  1671,  12).  Comp.  Gemberg , 
schottische  National  Kirch e,  p.  11.  Winer,  1.  c.  See  note  below.  \Niemeyer , 
340-359,  gives  the  two  Scotch  Confessions.] 

8  It  was  drawn  up  at  a  Synod  of  the  Hungarian  Reformed  churches, 
a.  d.  1557  or  1558,  and  consisted  of  11  articles.  Schrockh,  Kirchenges- 
chichte  nach  der  Reformation,  ii.  p.  737.  Corp.  et  Synt.  i.  (186,)  p.  148, 
ss.,  after  the  Debreczin  edition,  1570.  Winer,  p.  20.  Augusti,  p.  241,  ss, 

8  It  was  originally  a  private  confession  of  Guido  de  Bres,  and  was  first 
published  a.  d.  1562,  in  the  Walloon  language  (it  consisted  of  37  articles). 
It  was  soon  after  translated  into  Dutch,  approved  by  the  Dutch  churches, 
and  even  signed  by  several  princes.  It  was  solemnly  confirmed  by  the 
Synod  of  Dort.  It  was  edited  by  Festus  Hommius ,  Lugd.  Bat.,  1618,  4, 
and  several  times  subsequently.  See  Augusti,  p.  170,  ss.  [See  Brandt's 
History  of  Ref.,  Lond.,  1720,  vol.  i.,  p.  143,  sq.  Niemeyer,  loc,  cit,  p,  360- 


168 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


389  ;  also  Prsefatio,  p.  lii-lvii.  Venema ,  Inst.  Hist.  Eccl.  vii.  p.  252,  sq.  It 
was  at  first  a  private  document  of  de  Bres ;  revised  by  Saravia,  Modetus, 
and  Wingen  ;  published  1563  ;  abbreviated  by  the  synod  of  Antwerp,  1566. 
The  longer  form  was  adopted  by  the  synod  of  Wesel,  1568,  and  of  Embden, 
1571.  The  Middleburg  synod,  1581,  ordered  the  shorter  form  to  be  abridged 
and  translated  into  Belgic.  The  edition  of  Hommius,  1618,  was  published 
for  the  use  of  the  synod  of  Dort ;  but  the  formula  as  adopted  at  Dort  differs 
considerably  from  that  given  by  Hommius.  Niemeyer ,  reprints  the  edition 
of  Hommius.  English  version  in  the  Appendix  to  Constitution  of  llutch 
Reformed  Church,  pp.  40-60.] 

10  Its  original  title  was :  Des  hochgebornen  Fiirsten  Johann  Siegmund, 
etc.,  Bekanndniss  von  jetzigen  unter  den  Evangelischen  schwebenden  und  in 
Streit  gezogenen  Punkten,  etc.  (i.  e.  the  Confession  of  the  illustrious  Prince 
John  Sigismund,  etc.,  concerning  those  points  respecting  which  Protestants 
are  now  at  issue).  It  consisted  of  16  articles.  It  is  not  to  be  confounded 
with  the  confession  of  faith  adopted  by  the  Reformed  evangelical  churches 
of  Germany,  which  was  published  at  Frankfort  on  the  Oder,  1614,  by  order 
of  the  same  prince.  For  further  particulars,  see  Winer,  p.  21.  It  is  re¬ 
printed  by  Augusti ,  p.  369,  ss. 

11  It  was  composed  by  Calvin ,  and  appeared  1541,  in  a  French  edition, 
and  1545,  in  a  Latin  one.  It  consists  of  4  principal  parts  (Faith,  Law, 
Prayer,  and  Sacraments).  Calvini  Opera  T.  viii.  p.  11,  ss.  Winer ,  p.  22. 
Augusti,  p.  460.  [Calvin  drew  up  a  Catechism  in  1536,  published  in  Latin, 
1538.  See  Henry's  Life  of  Calvin,  ii.  150.  In  1541,  he  revised  it,  and  it 
was  probably  published  first  in  French,  and  then  in  Latin.  See  Niemeyer , 
xxxvii.-xli.  123-190.] 

12  Adopted  by  a  General  Synod  in  Poland,  convened  for  pacification, 
under  Vladislas  IV.,  in  Thorn,  1645,  it  came  to  be  very  generally  received 
in  a  large  part  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Eastern  Europe.  [See  also  the 
Consensus  Polonise  in  Niemeyer,  560-591.] 

13  See  the  special  history  of  doctrines  (the  chapters  on  predestination). 

14  It  lasted  from  a.  d.  1618,  Nov.  13th,  to  a.  d.  1619,  May  9th,  and  held 
145  sessions.  Its  decrees,  etc.,  were  published  in  the  Acta  Synodi  Nationalis, 
etc.  Port,  1620,  4.  [In  Niemeyer,  pp.  690-728.  In  English,  in  Appendix 
to  Constitution  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  60-75.  Acts  of  the  Synod 
of  Dort,  Bond.,  1620,  fol.  See  too,  Vinke,  Libri  Symbolici  Eccles.  Reform. 
Nederlandiese,  Traj.  ad  Rhenum,  1846,  which  also  contains  the  First  Confess, 
addressed  to  Philip  II.,  the  Confession  Ancienne  of  1-566,  etc.  The  Articles 
of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  its  Rejection  of  Errors,  transl.  by  Thomas  Scott , 
L2roo.,  Utica,  1831.  Comp.  Schweizer,  Protest.  Central  Dogmen,  ii.  31-201. 
Hales  (John)  Golden  Remains;  and,  Hist.  Concil.  Dordrech.  ed.  Moshemius,x 
Harnb,,  J728„  Graf,  Beitrage  zur  Gesch.  d.  Synode  von  Dordrecht,  Basel, 

18.24] 

It  was  directed,  in  the  first  instance,  against  the  theory  of  the  univer¬ 
sality,  ef;  grace,  advocated  in  the  academy  of  Saumur  (comp.  §  225,  note  3), 
and  was  instigated  chiefly  by  Heinrich  Heidegger,  of  Zurich,  Francis  Tur - 
retm,  of  Geneva,  and  Lucas  Gernler,  of  Basle.  The  draft  was  drawn  up  by 
Heidegger  ..under  the  title :  Formula  Consensus  Ecclesiarum  Ilelveticarum 


§  222.  Theology  of  the  Reformed  Church. 


169 


Reform atar urn  circa  doctriuam  de  gratia  universal],  et  connexa,  aliaque 
nontmlla  capita.  It  consists  of  26  articles.  As  to  its  history,  and  the 
controversies  to  which  it  gave  rise,  as  well  as  concerning  its  final  abolition 
(by  the  intervention  of  Prussia  and  England,  a.  d.  1723,)  see  Pfaff ,  C.  M., 
Schediasma  de  Form.  Consens.  Helvet.  Tub.  1723,  4. — Hottinger ,  J.  J., 
Succincta  ac  Genuina  Formulae  Consensus  Helv.  Historia  (in  the  Bib!.  Brem. 
vii.  p.  669,  ss.  It  was  separately  published,  Zur.  1723).  Memoires  pour 
servir  a  l’liistoire  des  troubles  arrivees  cn  Suisse  a  l’occasion  du  Consen¬ 
sus.  Amst.  1726  (by  Barnaud ,  pastor  at  La  Tour,  near  Vevay).  Leonh. 
Meister ,  helvet.  Scenen  der  neuern  Schwarmeri  und  Intoleranz.  Zurich,  1785, 
p.  3,  ss.  j Escher,  in  the  Allgemeine  Encyclopaedic,  1.  c.  p.  243,  ss.  Alex. 
Schweizer ,  Die  theologisch-ethischen  Zustande  (§  223,  note  21),  s.  35,  sq. 
[6rcm,  Gesch.  d.  Protest.  Dogmatik,  ii.  (1857),  s.  328-374.  Syntagma 
Thesium  Theologicarum  in  Acad.  Salmur.,  ed.  2,  Salm.,  1664.  Aymon ., 
Tons  les  Synodes  Nationales  des  Eglises  Reform,  ii.  604,  sq.  Dallaeus , 
Apologia  pro  duabus  Synodis,  Amst..,  1685.  Rlveti  Opera,  iii.  Tom  :  Synopsis 
Doctrinae  de  Natura  et  Gratia  (Tom.  iii.  p.  830,  sq.)  Schiveizer,  Protest. 
Centraldogmen,  ii.,  Die  Amyraldischen  Streitigkeiten,  s.  225-439  ;  der  Hel- 
vetische  Consensusformel,  s.  439-564,  and  s.  663-748 ;  and  in  Theol.  Jahrb. 
(Tubing.),  1852,  i.  41,  ii.  155.] 

Among  the  symbols  of  the  Reformed  Church  are  further  enumerated :  the  Confessiones 
Polonicae,  (1.  Consensus  Sendomiriensis,  1570.  2.  Thoruniensis  Synodi  generalis,  A.  d. 

1595,  d.  21,  Aug.  celebratas  canones).  Confessio  Bohemica,  1535  (1558,  4.)  Colloquium 
Lipsiacum,  1631.  Declaratio  Thoruniensis,  1645.  (They  are  all  reprinted  in  the  works 
of  Augusti  [and  Niemeyer\  who  also  give  all  desirable  historical  information.) — On  the 
symbols  of  the  Puritans  see,  Niemeyer ,  G.  A .,  Collections  Confessionum  in  Ecclesiis  Re¬ 
formats  publicatarum.  Appendix.,  Lips.,  1840.  Conf.  Westmonasteriensis  (1659,  60,  64), 
and  the  two  Catechisms  (1647).  Hallische  Literatur  Zeitung,  Jan.,  1841. 

[The  Westminster  Assembly ,  convened  by  order  of  Parliament,  1643,  consisting  of  151 
members.  The  Confession  was  presented  to  the  Commons,  Dec.  11,  1646  :  Shorter  Cate¬ 
chism,  Nov.  5,  1647 :  Larger  Catechism,  April  5,  1648.  The  General  Assembly  of  Scot¬ 
land  ratified  the  Confession,  Aug.  27,  1647,  and  the  Catechism,  July,  1648.  The  Synod 
„of  Cambridge,  New  England,  adopted  the  Confession  in  1648.  The  Savoy  Confession , 
drawn  up  by  the  Independents,  1658,  is,  in  its  doctrinal  parts,  nearly  identical  with  the 
Westminster;  a  Boston  Synod,  1680,  adopted  this  Confession;  in  1708  it  was  adopted  at 
Saybrook,  for  the  Connecticut  churches.  The  West.  Confess,  was  adopted  by  the 
Presb.  church  in  America,  1729  (Adopting  Act) ;  it  is  also  received  by  the  various  branches 
of  Presbyterians  in  Scotland,  Ireland,  and  the  United  States.  The  Baptists  of  England 
adopted  a  Confession  of  Faith,  Bond.,  1643.  Conf.  of  the  Seven  Churches,  published, 
1646,  in  52  articles;  and  the  Confession  of  the  Assembly  in  1688  (London),  in  35  chap¬ 
ters  (called  in  the  United  States  the  Philadelphia  Confession).  Comp.  S.  S.  Cutting , 
Histl.  Vindication,  Bost.,  1859.  Some  English  Baptists  in  Amsterdam,  published  a  Con¬ 
fession  in  1611 ;  another  London  Confession,  1640 ;  Somerset’s  Confession,  1656.  See 
Ed.  Dean  Underhill ,  Conf.  of  Faith  of  Baptists,  for  Hansard  Knollys  Society,  LoncL, 
1854.] 


170 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


§  223. 

THE  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  REFORMED  CHURCH. 

On  the  literature,  compare  §  216.  Al  Schweizer,  Reformirte  Glaubenslehre  (Introduction), 
and  his  Protestant.  Oentraldogmen,  Zurich,  1854-6.  Ebrard,  Dogmatik  i.  62,  sq.,  [transl. 
in  Mercersburg  Qu.  Rev.,  1857.  Gass,  ubi  supra.  Heppe ,  Dogmatik  des  Deutschen 
Protest.  Bd.  i.  s.  139-204,  Entstehung  und  Ausbildung  der  deutsch-reformirt.  Dog¬ 
matik.  Twesten ,  Dogmatik.  i.  (1834),  s.  226-273.  Hagenbach's  Leben  und  aus- 
gewahlte  Schriften  der  Vater  und  Begriinder  der  reformirt.  Kirche,  IX.  Bande.] 

Systematic  theology  was  on  the  whole  less  cultivated  in  the  Re- 
formed  Church  than  exegesis,  though  it  was  not  kept  in  the  back¬ 
ground.  In  addition  to  the  labors  of  Zwingle  and  Calvin  (§  219), 
many  of  their  followers,*  such  as  Heinr.  Bulling ery  Andr.  Gerh. 
Hyperius ,2  Wolfgang  Musculus  [ Dusanus ],3  Ben.  Aretius ,4  Wilh. 
Bucanus ,5  Theodore  Beza ,6  Petrus  Ramus /  Daniel  Chamier*  and 
others,  wrote  compendiums  of  dogmatic  theology.  The  scholastic 
method,  too,  soon  found  its  way  into  the  Reformed  Church,  as  the 
representatives  of  which  we  may  mention  Bartholomew  Keeker - 
mann ,9  Amandus  Polanus  a  Polansdorff  J.  H.  Alstedf  John 
Sharp  f  John  Wollebiusf  Henry  Altingf  John  Maccoviusf  Gis - 
bert  Voetiusf  Mark  Frederick  Wendelinf  John  Hornbeck ,18 
Samuel  Maresiusf  Andrew  Rivelusf  and,  preeminently,  John 
Henry  Heidegger .21  A  peculiar  theological  system,  in  the  so-called 
federal  method,  was  inaugurated  by  J.  Cocceiusf  and  more  fully 
developed  by  his  followers,  the  most  eminent  of  whom  were  Francis 
Burr  mann  ,23  Abraham  Heidanusf  Hermann  WitsiusP  Melchior 
Leydecker ,  on  the  other  hand,  treated  the  whole  system  of  theology 
in  the  order  of  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity.26  Others,  again, 
adopted  other  methods.27 

1  Bullinger  was  born  a.  d.  1504,  and  died  1575.  See  Hess,  Lebensge- 
schichte  Heinrich  Bullingers,  2  vol.,  1828,  29. — He  wrote :  Compend.  Eel. 
Christ,  e  puro  Dei  Verbo  deproratum,  Basil.,  1556.  Concerning  the  part 
which  he  took  in  the  composition  of  various  confessions  of  faith,  see  the 
preceding  §.  [On  Bullinger,  see  Schenkel  in  Herzog’s  Realencyclop.  and 

*  [Peter  Martyr  Vermilius,  Bucer ,  Capito ,  Oecolampadius ,  Pictet ,  and  Myconius  also  de¬ 
serve  mention  as  helping  to  give  shape  to* the  Reformed  system.  Peter  Martyr,  an  Italian, 
taught  in  Strasburg,  Oxford,  and  Zurich,  died  1562.  His  theological  system  was  first 
published  in  England,  by  Massonius :  then  more  fully  under  the  title  Loci  Communes  (ed. 
Gualter),  Zurich,  1580,  1626,  Heidelb.,  1622.  Comp.  G.  Schmidt,  in  Hagenbach's  Leben 
der  Vater  der  Ref.  K.  McCrie's  Reform,  in  Italy.  Bucer  (Butzer,  Mart.)  b.,  1491,  taught 
in  Strasburg,  in  England,  1549,  died,  1551.  No  complete  edition  of  his  works;  one  pro¬ 
jected  in  10  vols.  See  Schenkel,  in  Herzog's  Encycl.  Baum,  in  Hagenbach's  Leben  d. 
Vater. —  Capito  (Kopfel),  b.,  1478,  also  in  Strasburg,  died  1541.  See  Ilagenbach  in  Herzog's 
Encycl.,  and  Baum  in  the  Leben  der  Vater.— Of  Oecolampadius  and  Myconius ,  Hagen- 
bach  has  written  the  lives  in  his  Leben  d.  Vater  d.  reform.  Kirche.] 


§  223.  Theology  of  the  Reformed  Church. 


171 


Schioeizer ,  loc.  cit.  Ilis  Judgment  in  certeyne  matters  on  Religion,  transl., 
1566;  50  Sermons  in  vol.  5  of  Parker  Soc.  Publications;  A  hvndred 
Sermons,  1561  ;  bis  Decades,  by  Parker  Soc.,  4  vols.,  1849-52;  for  a  list 
of  bis  other  works  transl.,  see  Lowndes’  Bibliog.  Manual,  Bobn’s  ed.,  1858, 
i.  pp.  309,  10.  B’s  Leben  und  Scbriften,  by  C.  Pestalozzi ,  in  Hagenbacb’s 
Leben  und  Scbriften  der  Vater,  etc.] 

8  Hyperius  was  born,  a.  d.  1511,  at  Ypres,  and  died  1564,  as  professor  of 
theology  in  the  university  of  Marburg.  His  theological  works  are  :  Metbodi 
Theologise  sive  praecipuorum  Christ.  Rel.  Locorum  Communium  Lib.  iii. 
Basil.,  1568,  8.  Yaria  Opuscula  Tbeol.  ibid.,  1570,  71.  Comp.  Semler's 
Einleitung  zu  Baumgarten’s  Glaubenslehre,  p.  46,  ss.  Heinrich ,  p.  293,  ss. 
[On  Hyperius ,  compare  Manggold  in  Deutsche  Zeitschrift,  1855,  and  in 
Herzog’s  Realen cyclop.  Heppe ,  Dogmatik  derdeutschen  Protest,  i.  145,  sq, 
Gass ,  i.  131.] 

3  His  proper  name  was  Muslin,  or  Mosel.  He  was  born  a.  d.  1497,  in 
Lothringia,  and  died  1563,  as  professor  of  theology  in  the  university  of 
Berne.  He  is  the  author  of:  Loci  Communes  Theol.,  Berne.,  1573,  8.  Opp. 
Bas.  ix.  fol.  Semler ,  1.  c.  p.  56,  note  28.  Gass ,  131. 

4  Aretius  died  a.  n.  1574,  as  professor  of  theology  in  the  university  of 
Berne ;  was  previously  professor  in  Marburg.  He  wrote :  Theologica  Pro- 
blemata  sive  Loci  Communes,  Bern.,  1604.  Semler ,  1.  c.  p.  54,  note  26. 
Heinrich ,  296.  Gass ,  131. 

3  Bucanus  was  professor  of  theology  in  the  university  of  Lausanne,  towards 
the  commencement  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  wrote  :  Institutt.  Theol., 
etc.,  Brem.,  1604.  Genev.,  1612. 

6  JBeza  was  born  a.  d.  1519,  at  Vecelay,  and  died  1605.  (Compare  his 
biography  by  Schlosser ,  Heidelb.,  1809.)  QusestiomHn  et  Responsionum 
Christ.  Libellus  in  his  Tractt.  Theol.  vol.  i.  p.  654.  Baum's  Beza,  2  Bde., 
1843-52,  and  Beilagen.  [ Beza's  Brief  Declaration  of  the  Table  of  Predes¬ 
tination,  transl.,  London  (no  date) ;  Sermons,  1687  ;  other  works  translated, 
see  in  Lowndes ,  ubi  supra,  p.  169,  Herzog  in  his  Encyclopedia.  Heppe' s 
Life  of  Beza  is  to  form  vol.  vi.  of  Hagenbach’s  Leben  der  Vater  der  reform. 
Kirche.] 

7  Peter  Ramus  (de  la  Ramee)  was  born  at  Cuth,  in  Picardy,  and  died  a 
martyr,  St.  Bartholomew’s  night,  Aug.  25,  1572.  He  wrote:  Commenta- 

v  riorum  de  Religione  Christ,  lib.  iv.,  Francof.,  1576.  De  Fide,  de  Lege,  de 
Precatione,  de  Sacramentis.)  [ Chs .  Waddington ,  Ramus,  sa  Vie,  ses  Ecrits, 
Paris,  1855.  Ritter,  Gesch.  der  Christl.,  Phil.  v.  471.  Tennemann,  ix. 
420.  Eclectic  (Lond.),  Sept.  1856.  Hallam's  Lit.  Europe,  i.  205.] 

8  Chamier  was  born  in  Dauphiny  ;  died  Oct.  16,  1621,  professor  at  Mom 
tauban,  during  the  siege  of  that  city.  He  wrote :  Panstratia  Catholica,  s. 
Corpus  Controversiarum  ad  versus  Pontificios,  Genev.,  1606,  v.  vol.  fol.  Cor¬ 
pus  Theol ogicum,  s.  Loci  Communes  Theologici,  ib.,  1653,  fol.  (opus  pos- 
thumum.)  [Memoir  of  Chamier,  with  Notices  of  his  Descendants,  Lond., 
1852.  Haag,  in  La  France  Protestante,  iii.  316.  C.  Schmidt,  in  Herzog’s 
Eneyclop.]* 

*  Other  Reformed  divines  of  the  16th  century  are  Francis  Junius ,  died  1602,  professor 


172 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


9  Keckermann ,  born  at  Pantzic,  was  professor  in  the  university  of  Heidel¬ 
berg,  and  died  1609,  Aug.  25th  (Adami  Vitae  Philos,  p.  232,  ss.  Bayle , 
Piet.  :  “  his  ivorks  abound  in  plagiarisms ,  and  have  themselves  been  plagiar¬ 
ised  by  many  others .”)  He  wrote  :  Systema  Theol.  tribus  libris  adornat. 
Hanoviae,  1607.  Opp.  Genev.,  1614,  4.  Gass,  408. 

10  Polanus  was  born  at  Troppau,  -in  Silesia,  a.  d.  1561,  delivered  lectures 
in  the  university  of  Basle,  and  died  1610  (comp.  Athenae  Raur.  p.  37.)  He 
composed  a  Syntagma  Theol.  Christ.  Han.,  1610.  See  Gass ,  i.  396.  [6ras$ 
says  Polanus  gave  the  first  example  of  an  elaboration  of  the  doctrinal  system, 
expounding  and  making  distinctions,  in  the  causal  method.] 

11  Alsted  was  born  a.  d.  1588,  at  Herborn,  and  died  at  Weissenbourg,  a.  d. 
1638,  where  he  was  professor  of  theology.  His  works  are  very  numerous: 
Theologia  Naturalis  Francof.,  1615,  22,  4. — Theologia  Catechetica,  ib.,  1622, 
4,  Han.,  1722,  4. — Theologia  Scholastica,  ib.,  1618,  4. — Theol.  Didactica, 
1627,  4.— -Theologia  Polemica,  ibid.,  eod. — Theologia  Prophetica.  ib.,  1622, 
4. — Theol.  Casuum.,  Hanov.,  1630,  4.  Gass ,  411. 

12  Sharp  (J.  Scoto-Brittanus),  was  professor  at  Pie  on  the  Prome,  in 
Pauphiny.  He  wrote :  Cursus  Theologicus,  in  quo  Controversies  omnes  de 
Fidei  Pogmatibus  inter  nos  et  Pontificios  pertractuntur,  et  ad  Bellarmini 
Argumenta  respondetur,  ed.  2,  Genev.,  1620.  See  Schweizer ,  s.  xxi.  [He 
also  wrote  Symphonia  Prophetarum  et  Apostolorum,  Genev.,  1670.] 

J3  John  Wollebs  was  born  1586,  died  1629,  professor  of  theology  at 
Basle.  He  wrote:  Compendium  Christ.  Theolog.,  Basle,  1626  ;  also  trans¬ 
lated  into  English,  Christian  Pivinity  [Abridgment  of  Christ.  Pivinitie,  by 
Bose ,  with  the  Anatomy  of  the  whole  Body  of  Pivinitie,  12mo.,  1650.]  He 
is  distinguished  for  simplicity.  Ebrard  (Pogmatik),  calls  him  “  one  of  the 
greatest  theologians  'that  ever  lived?  Comp.  Gass,  i.  397  [and  Schweizer , 

11.  26,  who  contest  this  judgment.] 

14  John  H.  Alting,  born  at  Emden,  was  professor  at  Heidelberg  from  1613, 
died  1644,  professor  in  Groningen.  Works  :  Problemata  turn  theoretica, 
turn  practica,  Amst.,  1662,  4to. — Theologia  Elenchtica,  Bas.,  1670,  Amst., 
1664. — Method.  Theol.  Pidact.,  Amst.,  1650.  Tiguri,  1673.  His  son, 
Jacob  Alting,  was  also  distinguished  in  theology  and  polemics;  Methodus 
Theol.  in  his  Opera,  Amst.,  1687.  See  Gass ,  i.  434.  [AT.  Alting  also 
wrote  :  Theologia  Historica,  Amst.,  1664.  Exegesis  Augustan.  Confess., 
1652.  See  Schweizer,  in  Herzog's  Realencyclop.] 

15  His  proper  name  was  Makowsky  ;  he  was  born  at  Lobzenik,  in  Poland, 
a.  d.  1508,  professor  of  theology  in  Franecker,  and  died  a.  d.  1644.  He 
adopted  the  Aristotelian  method  of  investigation,  and  composed :  Loci  Com- 
mun.  Theol.  Fran.,  1639,  8,  ed.  auct.  Nic.  Arnold,  1650,  4.  An  improved 
edition  of  this  work  appeared  1685.  In  addition  he  wrote  :  Qusestiones 
Theolog. Frankcof.,  1626,  8.  Pistinctiones  et  Regulae  Theolog.  Amst.,  1656, 

12.  Heinrich,  p.  355.  Gass,  441. 

16  Voetius  was  born  a.  d.  1589,  at  Heusden,  in  Holland,  held  a  professor¬ 
ship  of  theology  in  the  university  of  Utrecht,  and  died  1676.  (He  opposed 

at  Leyden ;  Anton  Sardel  (Chardieu) ;  Hieronymus  Zanchius ,  died  1590  ;  Boquin,  died 
1582.  See  Gass ,  139.  Heppe,  148. 


§  223.  Theology  of  the  Reformed  Church. 


173 


Cartesius.)  Works:  Theol.  Naturalis  Reformata.,  Lond.,  1656,  4.  Insti- 
tutiones  Theol.  Traj.,  1642,  4. — Disputationes  Selectse,  ibid.  1684,  Amst., 
1669,  5  vols.  4. — See  Buddceus ,  i.  p.  417  (3 75.)  Heinrich ,  pp.  355,  356. 
Gass,  i.  460.  [ Schweizer ,  ii.  802.] 

17  Wendelin  was  born  a.  d.  1584,  at  Sandhagen,  near  Heidelberg,  and 

died  1652,  at  Zerbst,  where  he  was  Rector  Gymnasii.  He  wrote:  Christ. 
Theol.  Libri.  ii.  methodice  dispositi,  Han.,  1634,  41,  Amst.,  46,  Christ.  Theol. 
Systema  Majus.,  Cassel.,  1656,  4.  Buddceus ,  p.  416.  Heinrich ,  p.  356. 
Gass ,  416.  [ Schweizer ,  ii.  522.] 

18  Hornbeck,  was  born  a.  d.  1617,  at  Haarlem,  and  died  1666,  as  a  pro¬ 
fessor  in  the  university  of  Leyden.  He  composed  :  Institute  Theol.  Ultraj., 
1653,  Lugd.  Bat.  58,  8.  See  Buddceus,  p.  417.  Heinrich,  p.  357.  [6rass, 
ii.  287,  293.  Schweizer ,  i.  379.  He  also  wrote  Socinianismi  Confutatio, 
3  Tom.,  Amst.,  1664.] 

19  His  proper  name  was  des  Marets ;  he  was  born  a.  d.  1598,  at  Oisemont, 
in  the  province  of  Picardy,  and  died  1673,  at  Groningen.  Works:  Colle¬ 
gium  Theologicum  sive  Systema  Universale.  Gron.,  1658,  4. — Theologise 
Elenchticae  nova  Synopsis  sive  Index  Controversiarum,  etc.,  ibid.,  1648,  ii.  4, 
and  several  others.  Gass,  ii.  442.  [He  also  wrote  against  Cocceius  and 
Descartes  :  see  Schweizer,  ii.,  passim.] 

30  Rivetus  was  born  a.  d.  1573,  and  died  1651.  Most  of  his  works  were 
exegetical.  The  following  is  of  a  Polemico-dogmatic  character  :  Catholicus 
Orthodoxus  sive  Summa  Controversiarum  inter  Orthodoxos  et  Pontificios, 
Lugd.  Bat.,  1630,  ii.  4.  He  also  composed  several  controversial  writings, 
and  other  treatises.  Opp.  Rotterd.,  1651,  60,  iii.  fob  [ Rivetus  was  espe¬ 
cially  active  against  Amyraut  and  the  school  of  Saumur.  His  writings 
against  A.  are  in  the  3d  vol.  of  his  Opera,  pp.  828-878.  Comp.  Schweizer, 
ubi  supra,  s.  342-354.  Gass,  ii.  339-349.  His  collection  of  testimonies  as 
to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  in  Theol.  Essays,  from  the  Princeton  Rev. 
(Vol.  I.,  1846),  pp.  196,  sq .] 

31  Heidegger  was  born  in  1633  ;  died,  professor  of  theology,  in  Zurich,  in 
1698.  He  was  the  author  of  the  Formula  Consensus  [see  Schweizer,  ii. 
482,  s^.]  He  also  wrote:  Medulla  Theologise  Christian.  Tur.,  1696,  1702, 
17 13;  Corpus  Theol.  Christ,  s.  Theol.  didacticse,  moralis  et  historicse  Sys¬ 
tema,  2  fol.  Tur.,  1700,  1732.'  Medulla  Medullse,  1701.  Also,  many  disser¬ 
tations.  See  Alex.  Schweizer,  Die  theologisch-ethischen  Zustande  der  2. 
Halfte  des  17,  Jahrh.  in  d.  Ztirich.  Kirche  Zur.,  1857,  s.  12,  sq.  [6r<m, 
ii.  353,  sq.  Herzog’s  Encycl.  article  Helvetic  Confessions,  by  Trechsel^\ 

33  Cocceius ’  original  name  was  Koch.  He  was  born  at  Bremen,  1603,  and 
died  1669.  His  doctrinal  system  was  founded  upon  the  idea  of  a  covenant 
between  God  and  man.  He  distinguished  between  (1.)  the  covenant  before 
the  fall  (the  covenant  of  works),  and  (2.)  the  covenant  after  the  fall  (the 
covenant  of  grace.)  The  latter  covenant  embraces  a  threefold  economy: 
1.  The  economy  prior  to  the  law.  2.  The  economy  under  the  law.  3.  The 
economy  of  the  Gospel.  His  principles  are  developed  in  his  Summa  Doc- 
tringe  de  Fcedere  et  Testamentis  Dei,  1648.  See  Buddceus,  p.  41 7.  Hein¬ 
rich,  p.  358,  ss.  Heppe,  s.  204,  sq. :  “  The  fruit  of  his  infuence  on  the 
Reformed  systematic  theology  was  to  lead  theologians  back  to  the  freedom  of 


174 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


the  Word  of  God ,  delivering  it  from  the  bondage  of  a  traditional  scholasti¬ 
cism,  and  of  a  mode  of  handling  the  topics  ivhich  subserved  the  interests  of 
the  culture  of  the  schools .”  [Compare  particularly  Ebrard,  Dogmatick,  i. 
^4 — 7 8,  and  in  Herzog's  Encyclop.  Schweizer,  ii.  665,  802. 

23  Burmann,  was  born  at  Leyden,  1628,  professor  of  theology  at  Utrecht 
from  1662,  died  1679.  He  wrote:  Synopsis  Theologiae  et  Oeconomiae 
Foederum  Dei,  Amst.,  1671,  1691,  2  Tom.  [6rWs,  ii.  310.] 

24  Heidanus,  born  at  Frankenthal,  in  the  Palatinate,  1648,  professor  of 
theology  at  Leyden,  deposed  on  account  of  the  controversies  about  the  Car¬ 
tesian  Philosophy,  died  1678  ;  wrote  Corpus  Theol.  Christ.,  2  Tom.,  1687. 
[6r<m,  ii.  300-307.  Schweizer ,  ii.  677.] 

25  Witsius  was  born  in  West  Friesland,  1626,  professor  of  theology  at 
Franecker,  Utrecht  and  Leyden;  died,  1708.  Works:  Miscellanea  Sacra, 
2  Tom.,  Amst.,  1692.  Oeconomia  Foederum,  Traj.,  1694.  Meletemat, 
Leidensia,  Lugd.,  1703.  Collected  works,  vi.  Tom.,  Herborn,  1712-1 71 7. 
Basle,  1739,  4to.  [Economy  of  the  Covenants,  transl.  by  Crookshank,  2  vols., 
Edinb.,  1803.  Ibid.,  a  new  transl.,  3  vols.,  New  York,  1798.  Account  of 
his  life,  from  the  Latin  Oration  of  Marckius,  in  Topladfs  Works,  vol.  iv. 
Schweizer ,  ii.  804.  Gass,  ii.  316.  Ebrard,  i.  79.] — On  other  disciples  of 
Cocceius,  Wilh.  Momma,  [died,  1677  ;  wrote  De  Varia  Condition e  et  Statu 
Ecclesiae  Dei  sub  triplici  Oeconomia  Foederum  Dei,  etc.  Utrecht,  1671.] 
Joh.  Braun  [died,  1709:  Doctrina  Foederum,  sive  Syst.  Theol.  Amst.,  1688; 
Van  der  Waeijen ,  professor  in  Franecker,  Summa  Theol.,  1689],  and  Hie. 
Gurtler ,  see  Watch,  222,  sq.  Heinrich,  362.  [6ras$  and  Ebrard. ] 

26  Ley  decker  was  born  a.  d.  1642,  at  Middleburg,  in  the  Dutch  province 
of  Zeeland,  and  died  1721,  as  professor  of  theology  in  the  university  of 
Utrecht.  (His  views  were  opposed  to  those  of  Cocceius.)  He  wrote  :  De 
(Economia  trium  Personarum  in  Negotio  Salutis  Humanae  libri  vi.  Traj., 
1682,  12. 

27  E.  g.,  Heinr.  Hulsius,  Le  Blanc,  Markius ,  and  Turretin.  Comp. 
Watch,  p.  225,  ss.  Heinrich ,  p.  373,  ss. 

[Stephen  Szegeden  (Seegedin)  a  Hungarian,  published  in  Basle,  1585, 
Theologiae  sincerae  Loci  Communes,  rep.  1593  ;  see  Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  i.  65. 
His  friend  Grynceus ,  the  teacher  of  Arminius,  in  his  Opusc.  Theol.,  opposed 
the  doctrine  of  predestination. —  William  Ames,  b.  1576,  studied  theology 
at  Cambridge,  chaplain  at  the  Hague,  where  he  opposed  Arminius.  Profes¬ 
sor  at  Franeker,  1622,  died  1633.  He  wrote:  De  Arminii  Sentent.,  1616  : 
Medulla  Theologiae,  1628  ;  De  Conscientia  et  ejus  Jure;  strictly  Puritanic; 
collected  works,  5  vols.,  Amst.,  1628.  See  Schweizer,  in  Herzog — Antoine 
la  Faye ,  professor  in  Geneva,  died  1616  ;  Enchiridion  Theologicum  Docto- 
rum  et  Professorum  in  Acad.  Leydens.  1605.  Joh.  Polyandri ,  Andr.  Riveti , 
Ant.  Walaei  et  Anton.  Thysii  Synopsis  purioris  Theologiae,  Lugd.  Batav., 
1652.— Joh.  Heinr.  Hottinger ,  Cursus  Theolog.  in  Methodo  Altingiana,  Hei- 
delb.,  1660.] 


§  223.  The  German  Reformed  Theology. 


175 


§  223.  a. 

[THE  GERMAN  REFORMED  THEOLOGY.] 

[The  German  Reformed  Theology 1  assumed  a  peculiar  type,  in¬ 
termediate  between  the  Swiss  Calvinism,  and  the  German  Luther¬ 
anism  ;  between  the  strict  predestination  of  the  one,  and  the 
sacramental  theories  of  the  other.  It  perpetuated  the  spirit  of 
Melancthon,  and  fostered  union  with  the  Calvinists.  It  took  its 
origin  in  the  Palatinate,  and  received  its  expression  in  the  Heidel¬ 
berg  Catechism,2  drawn  up  by  Oleviahius ,3 4  and  Ur  sinus  f  though  its 
general  spirit  is  manifest  in  the  works  of  Andreas  Hyperius ,5 *  pro¬ 
fessor  in  Marburg.  Among  its  other  representatives  are  Peter 
Boquin  *  Hemming ,7  Christopher  Pezel ,8  George  Sohnius .9  In  the 
writings  of  the  latter,  of  Hieron.  Zanchius,10  of  Raph.  Eglinf  of 
Matthias  Martiniusf  of  Bartholomew  Keckermannf  of  Marcus 
Fried.  Wendelin ,u  of  Ludwig  Crocius ,15  and  John  Piscator,16  it  be¬ 
came  more  scholastic  in  its  character,  and  was  merged  in  the  stricter 
Calvinistic  tendency.  It  was  also  fostered  in  the  theological  gymna¬ 
sium  of  Bremen17  as  well  as  at  Heidelberg  ;  and  from  this  school 
proceeded  John  Cocceius,  who  gave  a  new  shape  to  the  theology  of 
Holland,  by  insisting  on  the  Covenants  as  the  central  idea.] 

1  [See  Ebrard ,  Dogmatik  i.,  §  35 ;  and  especially  Heppe ,  in  his  Gesch. 
des  deutschen  Protest.,  and  his  Dogmatik  des  dentschen  Protestantismus,  i. 

139-204.  Dr.  Heppe  makes  the  peculiarities  of  this  theology  to  consist  in 
three  points:  1.  Making  the  central  idea  to  be  that  of  the  covenant  (foedus 
Dei),  particularly  as  seen  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ:  2.  The  idea  of  an  essen¬ 
tial  union  with  Christ  (insitio  in  Christum) :  3.  Deduced  from  these  Two, 
the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  the  saints.  Comp.  Heppe  on  German 
'Ref.  Church,  transl.  in  the  Mercersb.  Rev.,  from  Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1853.] 

3  [On  the  Heidelberg  Catechism ,  see  §  222,  note  3,  and  the  work  of  Nevin, 
Hist,  and  Genius  of  Heidelberg  Catechism,  1847.  Princeton  Review,  1852. 
Nevin,  in  Mercersb.  Rev.,  in  reply,  1852.] 

3  [ Caspar  Olevianus  was  born  at  Treves,  1536,  studied  law  at  Paris,  and 
then  theology  at  Geneva,  preached  and  taught  at  Heidelberg,  1560-1576  ; 
died  in  Herborn,  1587.  He  wrote:  Expositio  Symboli  Apostol.,  1576;  De 
Substantia  Foederis  gratuiti  inter  Deum  et  electos,  Genev.,  1585  (his  chief 
work).  Comp.  Sudhoff,  in  Leben  de  Vater  d.  Ref.  K  ;  Heppe ,  ubi  supra,  i. 
149-158  ;  J.  Marx ,  Caspar  Olevian.  oder  der  Calvinismus  in  Trier.  Mainz., 
1846.] 

4  [ Zachary  Ursinus  (Beer)  was  born  in  Breslau,  1584,  studied  under 

Melancthon,  in  Wittenberg,  taught  in  Heidelberg,  1561-78,  died  in  Neustadt 

on  the  Hardt,  1583.  Loci  Theologici,  1562.  His  lectures  on  the  Heidelb. 

Catechism  were  published  in  an  imperfect  form  at  Geneva  (Doctrinae  Christ. 

Compendium),  1584  :  edited  by  his  successor  at  Heidelberg,  David  Pareus 


176 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


(f  1622),  n  1591,  under  the  title  Explicationum  Catechet.  Partes  IV.;  still 
more  improved  1598,  under  the  title,  Corpus  Doctrinae  Christ.  Opera,  3  fol. 
Heidelb.,  1613.  See  Heppe ,  u.  s.  i.  158-160.  An  English  version  by 
Ilenrie  Parrie ,  Summe  of  Christ.  Religion,  1587,  1589  (abridged),  1617, 
1645  (“conferred  with  the  last  Latine  of  Pareus,”  and  including  his  theo¬ 
logical  Medulla).  An  American  edition  by  G.  W.  Willard ,  Columbus, 
Ohio,  1851.  Comp.  Sudhoff,  in  Leben  d.  Vater  der  Ref.  Kirche,  Bd.  viii.] 

6  Hyperius ,  see  §  223,  note  2. 

6  [Boquin  was  professor  at  Heidelb.,  died  1582.  He  wrote :  Exegesis 
divinae  atque  humanae  aoLvutvlag,  Heidelb.,  1561.  See  Heppe,  i.  148.] 

7  [ Nicolas  Hemming ,  of  Denmark,  professor  in  Copenhagen.  He  wrote : 
Enchiridion  Theolog.,  1557  ;  Syntagma  Institutionum  Christ.  1574,  also  re¬ 
printed  in  Geneva.  See  Heppe ,  i.  85,  161.] 

8  [. Pezel ,  born  1539,  exiled  from  Wittenberg  for  his  Philippism,  1574, 
died  at  Bremen,  1604.  See  Heppe ,  i.  161.  His  chief  aim  was  to  introduce 
Melancthon  to  the  Reformed  church,  for  which  he  collected,  1580-89,  in 
8  vols.,  the  Argumenta  et  Objectiones  of  Melancthon  on  the  articles  of  the 
faith  ;  edited  the  Loci  Theologici  of  Victorin  S trigel  (Melancthon’s  friend, 
born  1524,  professor  at  Jena,  1548,  and  after  1562  in  Heidelberg,  where 
he  died,  1569.  Heppe,  u.  s.)  ;  and  in  1587,  the  Examen  Theologicum 
Phil.  Mel.] 

9  [ Sohnius ,  born  1551,  professor  in  Marburg  and  Heidelberg,  died  1589. 
Synopsis  Corporis  Doctr.  Phil.  Mel.  Heidelb.,  1588.  His  works  collected, 
4  vols.,  1591,  3d  ed.,  1609.  See  Heppe,  i.  175.] 

10  [ Zanchius ,  born  in  Italy,  1516,  professor  at  Strasburg,  Heidelberg; 
died  1591.  See  Heppe,  i.  178.  De  Relig.  Christ.  Fide,  1585.] 

1,1  [Raph.  Eglin,  Diexodus  Theologica  de  magno  illo  Insitionis  nostrae  in 
Christum  Mysterio,  and,  De  Foedere  Gratiae,  Marpurgi,  1613.  See  Heppe, 
Dogmatik  der  Ev.  Ref.  Kirche,  1861.] 

12  [Martini,  professor  at  Herborn  and  Bremen;  died  1630.  He  wrote: 
Christ.  Doctr.  Summa  Capita,  1603.  Summula  Theol.  Brem.,  1610.  See 
Heppe,  i.  185,  sg.] 

13  [See  §  223,  note  9.  Heppe  says  of  him  (i.  187),  that  the  height  of 
the  religious  and  philosophical  speculation,  and  of  the  dialectic  skill,  of  the 
German  Ref.  dogmatics  is  found  in  his  system.] 

14  See  §  223,  note  17. 

16  [Crocius  was  a  deputy  from  Bremen  to  the  synod  of  Dort :  died  1655. 
He  wrote  :  De  Perseverantia  Sanctorum,  Brem.,  1616  ;  Syntagma  Sacrae 
Theologiae,  1636.  See  Heppe,  i.  199,  sq.  Tholuck,  Vorgesch.  des  Ration- 
alismus,  i.  297.] 

16  [John  Piscator  (Fisher),  born  at  Strasburg,  Mar.  27,  1546,  professor  at 
Strasburg,  Heidelb.,  1574-77,  Herborn,  1584-1625,  where  he  was  the  chief 
ornament  of  the  Academy.  His  translation  of  the  Bible,  1602-3,  3d  ed., 
1624.  In  philosophy  he  followed  Ramus.  Aphorism.  Doctr.  Christ.,  1594, 
and  numerous  doctrinal  (as  well  as  exegetical)  treatises.  On  his  doctrine 
that  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  is  not  imputed,  see  the  special  History. 
Comp.  Steubing,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  hist.  Theol.  1841.  Schrockh,  Kir 


§  224.  Mysticism  in  the  Reformed  Church.  177 

N 

chengesch.  seit  Ref.  v.  358.  TholucJc ,  Akad.  Leben,  2,  304.  Herzog ,  in 
bis  Encyclop.] 

17  [On  the  school  of  Bremen,  see  Heppe ,  i.  195.] 


§  224. 

MYSTICISM  IN  THE  REFORMED  CHURCH. 

if.  Goebel ,  Geschicbte  des  christl.  Lebens  in  der  Rheinisch-westphalischen  evang.  Kirche, 
ii.  Coblenz,  1852.  Eamberger ,  Stimmen  aus  dem  Heiligthum,  Stuttg.,  1857.  Noack , 
Mystik.  Comp.  §  217.  [if  Goebel ,  Gesch.  d.  Inspirations- Gemeinden,  1688,  sq.,  in 
Niedner’s  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  hist.  Theol.,  1853-4.] 

The  mysticism  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  was  introduced 
into  the  Reformed  Church,  first  by  John  Labadie  and  his  followers,1 * 
and  afterwards  by  Peter  Poiret ,3  a  disciple  of  Antoinette  Bourig- 
non .*  In  England,  Joanna  (Jane)  Leade ,4 *  was  followed  by  John 
Pordage ,6  Thomas  Bromley ,  and  others.  But  this  kind  of  mysti¬ 
cism,  which  was  partly  fantastic,  partly  indifferent  to  all  systematic 
forms,  has  exerted  little  or  no  influence  upon  the  development  of 
theology.6 

1  Labadie  was  born  a.  d.  1610,  at  Bourg,.in  the  province  of  Gnienne, 
joined  the  Reformed  Church  without  accepting  its  fundamental  principles, 
and  died  16 74,  at  Altona.  In  many  points  he  agreed  with  the  Anabaptists. 
— Among  his  admirers  were  Anna  Maria  von  Schurmann ,  Peter  Yvon , 
Peter  du  Lignon ,  Henry  and  Peter  Schluter.  Comp.  Arnold ,  Kirchen-  und 
Ketzergeschichte,  vol.  ii.  p.  680.  Hagenbach ,  Vorlesungen  iiber  die  Ges- 
chichte  der  Reformation,  iv.  p.  307.  \Weismann ,  Hist.  Eccles.  p.  927. 
Mosheim ,  iii.  479.]  Gobel ,  ubi  supra,  ii.  181  :  and  on  Anna  Schurmann, 
ibid.,  273.  The  judgment  of  the  Reformed  orthodoxy  about  these  phe¬ 
nomena  were  often  very  severe ;  comp.  J.  C.  Schweizer ,  as  quoted  by  Al. 
Schweizer ,  ubi  supra,  s.  19.  \_Hase ,  Church  Hist.,  New  York  ed.,  p.  508. 
Barthold  in  Raumer's  Hist.  Tasclienbueh,  1852-3.] 

a  Poiret  was  born  a.  d.  1646,  at  Mentz,  and  died  1719,  at  Rheins- 
berg.  His  writings  are  of  greater  importance  for  the  history  of  doc¬ 
trines  than  those  of  the  other  mystics  (though  only  in  a  negative  aspect). 
Concerning  his  life  and  his  works  see  Arnold ,  1.  c.  p.  163;  Biographic 
universelle,  sub  voce;  and  Hagenbach ,  Vorlesungen  iv.  p.  325.  [He  wrote: 
L’Oeconomie  Divine,  7  vol.,  Amst.,  1686,  afterwards  publ.  in  Latin.  The 
Divine  Oeconomy,  6  vol.,  London,  1713.  Le  Chretien  reel,  ou  la  Vie  du 
Marquis  de  Rentz,  etc,,  2  vol.,  Col.,  1701-2.  Cogitationes  Ration,  de  Deo, 
etc.,  2d  ed.,  Amst.,  1685.] 

3  Antoinette  Bourignon  was  born  a.  d.  1616,  at  Lisle,  in  Flanders,  and 

died  1680,  at  Franeker.  A  memoir  of  her  life  was  published  Amst.,  1683. 

See  Evangelische  Kirchenzeitung,  1837.  Hagenbach ,  Vorlesungen,  iv.  p. 

312,  ss. — \Kloze  in  NiedneAs  Zeitschrift  on  Dippel  and  Bourignon,  1851, 


178 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


s.  467,  sq.  Apology  for  M.  Antonia  Bourignon,  Lond.,  1699.  Of  her 
works  the  following  have  been  translated:  Light  of  the  World,  1698. 
Solid  Virtue,  1699.  Light  in  Darkness,  1706.  Gospel  Spirit,  1707. 
Warning  against  Quakers,  1708.  Academy  of  Learned  Divines,  1708. 
Comp.  Eagle's  Dictionnaire.] — Amos  Comenius ,  Swamerdam ,  and  others, 
adopted  her  opinions. 

Jane  Leade  was  born  a.  d.  1633,  and  died  1714  [1704  ?] ;  she  was  an  en¬ 
thusiast.  Comp.  Corrodi ,  Geschichte  des  Chiliasmus  iii.  p.  403,  ss.  Arnold , 
Kirchen-  und  Ketzergesch.  p.  199-298,  ss.  Hagenbach ,  Vorlesungen,  iv. 
p.  345.  [List  of  her  works  in  Notes  and  Queries,  1856,  p.  93.  Among 
them  (see  Lowndes'  Bibl.  Manual)  are  The  Enochian  AValks ;  Fountain  of 
Gardens,  1678-86,  3  vols. ;  The  Laws  of  Paradise;  Wonders  of  God’s 
Creation  in  eight  Worlds,  1695.  She  established  the  Philadelphia  Society 
in  1697.] 

6  Corrodi ,  1.  c.  [Pordage  died  1688.  Works  :  Divine  and  True  Meta¬ 
physics,  3  vols.,  and  Theologia  Mystica.] 

6  The  mysticism  of  the  Lutheran  Church  was  of  greater  speculative  im¬ 
portance  than  that  of  the  Reformed.  The  former  also  exerted  a  greater  in¬ 
fluence  upon  the  life  of  the  German  nation  (domestic  worship,  etc.),  than 
the  latter,  which  was  more  confined  to  private  individuals  and  schismatics. 


§  225. 

INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CARTESIAN  PHILOSOPHY.  MORE  LIBERAL 

TENDENCIES. 

Mysticism  exerted  less  influence  upon  the  gradual  transformation 
of  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  Reformed  Church,  than  did  the  philo¬ 
sophical  system  of  Descartes,  especially  in  the  Netherlands.1  [The 
Cartesian  theologians,  in  a  special  manner  attempted  to  reconcile 
the  principles  of  natural  and  revealed  theology.2  The  influence  of 
the  system  is  seen  in  the  works  of  Abraham  Heidanus ,3  Peter  van 
Mastrichtf  Solomon  van  Tilb  Campejus  Vitringa ,6  and  J.  March ,7] 
Balthazzar  Bekher ,  who,  in  combating  the  “  Enchanted  World” 
also  shook  the  orthodox  doctrines  of  the  Church,  belonged  to  this 
school.8  But,  apart  from  the  influence  of  any  definite  system  of 
philosophy,  a  more  liberal  tendency,  which  endeavored  to  shake  off 
the  yoke  of  symbolical  writings,  manifested  itself  in  different  quar¬ 
ters.  Such  was  the  case  in  the  university  of  Saumur,9  where  this 
tendency  was  connected  with  Arminian  views,  and  among  the  Plati¬ 
tudinarians  of  England.10  Among  the  Swiss  theologians  John  Alph. 
Turretin ,n  Ben.  Pictet™  and  Samuel  Werenfels ,13  were  distinguished 
for  moderate  views,,  though  they  remained  orthodox ;  thus  they 
formed,  by  their  principles,  as  well  as  the  period  in  which  they  lived, 
the  transition  to  the  eighteenth  century. 


§  225.  Influence  of  the  Cartesian  Philosophy.  179 


1  Renatus  Cartesius  (Rene  Descartes),  was  born  a.  d.  159G,  and  died 
1650,  at  Stockholm.  Ilis  maxim  :  “Cogito,  ergo  sum,”  is  well  known.  His 
philosophy  gave  rise  to  commotions  in  Holland.  Gisbert  Voetius ,  the  prin¬ 
cipal  opponent  of  Cartesius,  charged  him  a.  d.  1639,  with  atheism.  The 
philosophy  of  Cartesius  was  condemned  a.  d.  1647  (and  again  1676),  by  the 
senate  of  the  university  of  Leyden,  as  well  as  1657  by  the  Synod  of  Delft. 
Several  of  the  mystics  just  mentioned  belonged  originally  to  the  school  of 
Cartesius.  But  some  orthodox  divines  also  espoused  the  system.  See  Tho- 
lucie ,  Das  akademische  Leben  des  17  Jahrb.,  2te.  Abtheilung,  1854,  and  in 
Herzog’s  Realencycl.  ii.  391.  Gass,  i.  454.  [ Ebrard ,  Dogmatik,  i.  81-86. 

On  Descartes ,  see  Bouillier ,  De  la  Revolution  Cartesienne,  Paris,  1842,  2d 
fid.,  2  vol.,  Paris,  1854  ;  Cousin ,  Legons ;  Dugald  Stewards  Dissertations; 
MorelVs  Hist,  of  Philos.;  Ritter’s  Gesch.  d.  Phil.;  Edinb.  Review,  *1852 ; 
Simon ,  QEuvres  de  Descartes,  Introduction,  1844. — Francis  Burmann ,  the 
son-in-law  of  Heidanus,  adopted  the  Cartesian  system;  see  §  223,  note  29. 
Clauburg ,  in  Duisburg,  1653-65,  and  Heinr .  Hulsius ,  1684-1729,  taught 
it;  the  latter  went  so  far  as  to  represent  theology  as  the  ancilla  of  philoso¬ 
phy.  The  Lutheran  Job.  Wagner ,  Tiibing.,  wrote  against  it:  Examen 
elenchticum  Atheismi  speculativi,  1677.  Comp.  Tholuck ,  in  Herzog,  u.  s. 
on  the  Cartesian  philosophy.] 

a  [On  the  influence  of  Cartesianism,  see  Ebrard ,  Dogmatik,  i.  §  42.  The 
opposition  between  the  scholastics  and  federalists  was  on  the  relation  of  the 
Bible  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church;  the  contrast  between  the  scholastic 
divines  and  the  Cartesians,  was  on  the  relation  of  revelation  to  reason.] 

3  On  Heidan.  see  §  223,  note  24. 

4  \Peter  van  Maastricht,  professor  in  Utrecht,  died  1806.  He  opposed 
Cartesianism  in  his  Theologia  theoretico-practica,  Amst.,  1682,  and  espe¬ 
cially  in  his  Novitiatum  Cartes.  Gangrsena,  1675.] 

\_Van  Til ,  professor  in  Dort  and  Leyden,  died  1713.  He  showed  him¬ 
self  to  be  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  Reformed  divines,  in  his  Theologize 
utriusque  Compendium  turn  Naturalis  turn  Revelatse,  Leyd.,  1704,  media¬ 
ting  between  the  scholastic  divines  and  the  Cartesians,  and  distinguishing 
between  the  articuli  puri  and  mixti  of  theology — the  latter  being  those 
which  have  a  basis  in  the  soul,  though  the  clearest  light  is  throvm  on  them 
by  revelation.  See  Ebrard,  i.  84.] 

6  [Vitringa  was  professor  in  Franeker,  died  1722  ;  wrote  Doctrina  Christ. 
Rel.  per  Aphorismos  summatim  descripta,  Franeker,  1690.] 

7  [March,  professor  in  Leyden,  died  1731 ;  comp.  Theol.  Christ,  didactico- 
elenchticum,  Gron.  1686.] 

8  JBcJcker  was  born  a.  d.  1634,  in  West  Friesland,  adopted  the  principles 
of  Cartesius,  was  dismissed  from  office  on  account  of  his  opinions,  and 
died  1698.  (Compare  the  chapter  on  demonology  in  the  special  history  of 
doctrines.)  His  principal  work,  Die  bezauberte  Welt,  Franeker,  1692,  4to., 
contains  the  germs  of  the  rationalism  of  latter  times. 

8  Representatives  of  the  more  liberal  tendency  were,  among  others,  Moses 
Amyraldus  (Amyraud)  Joshua  de  la  Place  (Placzeus),  Leivis  Capellus ,  etc 
It  was  especially  in  opposition  to  their  views  that  the  Formula  Consensus 
was  drawn  up.  On  Amyraut ,  see  Schweizer  in  Zeller’s  Jahrb.,  1852,  and 


180  Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 

Edmond  Sagey ,  Strasb.,  1840.  Herzog's  Realencycl.  sub  Amyraut.  On 
the  doctrine  of  Pajou ,  see  Schweizer  in  Theol.  Jahrb.,  1853.  [See  the 
next  §  225  ai] 

10  Among  them  were  William  Chillingworth  (1602—1644),  Ralph  Cud • 
worth  (he  died  1688),  Tillotson ,  Stilling  fleet,  and  others.  [See  §  225  b .] 

11  Alphonse  Turretin  was  the  son  of  the  strictly  orthodox  Francis  Tur- 
retin,  born  1671,  and  died  at  Geneva  a.  d.  1737.  He  wrote:  Opuscula 
Brunsv.,  1726,  ii.  8.— Dilucidationes  phil.  theol.  et  dogmatico-morales,  quibus 
praecipua  Capita  Theologiae  et  naturalis  et  revelatse  demonstrantnr.  Lugd. 
Bal.,  1748,  iii.  4,  and  several  other  works. 

13  Pictet  was  born  a.  d.  1655,  and  died  a.  d.  1724,  at  Geneva.  He  com¬ 
posed  a  Theologia  Christiana,  Gen.,  1696,  ii.  8. — Medulla  Theologiae, „ibid., 
1711,  12,  and  several  other  works.  [Theology,  transl.  by  Eeyroux ,  Lond., 
1847.] 

13  Werenfels  was  born  1657,  and  died  1740.  (Athenae  rauricae,  p.  57, 
Hanhart ,  R.  in  the  Wissenschaftliche  Zeitschrift.  Basle,  1824,  part  1,  p.  22, 
part  2,  p.  53,  ss.)  He  wrote  :  Opuscula  Theologica.  Basil.,  1782,  iii.  8. 

§  225  a. 

[THE  FRENCH  SCHOOL  OF  SAUMUR.] 

[A.  Schweizer ,  Centraldogmen,  ii.  225— 430,  564-663  ;  and  article  Amyraut  in  Herzog's 
Encycl.  Ebrard ,  Dogmatik,  i.  §  43.] 

[Under  the  influence  of  John  Cameron /  who  succeeded  Gomarus 
at  Saumur,  in  1618,  a  modification  of  the  Calvinistic  system  was 
introduced  into  the  French  Reformed  theology,  represented  by  the 
names  of  Amyraut ,2  Placoeus ,3  and  Pajon .4  Cameron  himself 
taught,  after  Piscator,  the  imputation  of  Christ's  passive  obedience 
alone  ;  and  advocated  the  theory  of  the  hypothetic  universalism  of 
Divine  grace,  which  was  more  fully  developed  by  Amyraut.  “  The 
peculiarity  of  Amyraldism,"  says  Schweizer,  “  is  in  the  combination 
of  a  real  particularism  with  a  merely  ideal  universalism."5  Placoeus 
(De  la  Place),  advocated  the  mediate,  instead  of  the  immediate  im¬ 
putation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity.6  Louis  Cappel  represented 
this  school  in  its  exegetical  services.7  Though  Dallceus*  and  David 
Blondel  *  defended  Amyraldism,  and  though  Andrew  Rivetus ,  and 
even  Du  Moulin ,10  at  last  acknowledged  that  such  a  hypothetical 
universalism  of  grace  (qua  actu  nemo  salvatur)  was  at  least  harm¬ 
less,  yet  Heidegger  was  deputed  in  Switzerland  to  draw  up  against 
it  the  Formula  Consensus,  1675,  which,  however,  never  obtained 
any  general  authority.11] 

1  [John  Cameron  was  born  in  Glasgow,  about  1580  ;  Prof,  at  Sedan,  pas¬ 
tor  at  Bordeaux,  ]  608-1618;  Prof,  at  Saumur,  1618-24;  died  at  Montau- 
ban,  1625.  His  Arnica  Collatio  cum  Tileno,  1621,  is  against  Arminianism  ; 


§  225.  The  French  School  of  Saumur. 


181 

* 


also  his  Defensio  de  Gratia  et  libero  Arbitrio.  His  principal  works  (Prselect. 
Theol.  and  Myrotheticum  Evangel.)  were  published  by  the  National  Synod 
of  France  after  his  death.  See  Schweizer ,  in  Herzog's  Encycl.  Gass,  331.] 

2  [Moses  Amyraldus  (Amyraut),  was  born  at  Bourgeuil,  in  Tourraine, 
1596  ;  succeeded  Daille  at  Saumur,  1626;  became  Prof,  there,  in  1632. 
His  views  were  first  published  in  a  treatise  on  Predestination,  1634,  and  op¬ 
posed  by  Du  Moulin  and  Andr.  Rivetus.  He  was  acquitted  by  the  French 
Synod  of  1637,  and  at  Charenton,  1644  ;  the  charge  renewed  at  Loudun, 
1659,  but  not  carried  through.  He  died  1664.  Besides  numerous  exegetical 
works,  he  wrote  Theses  Salmurienses,  La  Morale  Chretienne,  1652-60,  etc. 
See  Schweizer,  ubi  supra.  Walch ,  Relig.  Streitigkeiten,  1733,  i.  454,  iii. 
736.  Gass ,  ii.  328.] 

3  [Joshua  de  la  Place  (Placseus),  born  1596,  Prof,  at  Saumur,  1632,  died 
1 655.  The  theory  of  original  sin,  as  consisting  only  in  native  corruption, 
was  condemned  by  the  French  Synod  of  1645,  though  Placseus  himself  was 
not  named.  He  accepted  the  statement  of  the  Synod,  by  distinguishing  be¬ 
tween  immediate  and  mediate  imputation.  He  was  opposed  by  Anton 
Garissol ,  Prof,  in  Montauban,  and  defended  by  Chs.  Drelincourt ,  pastor  at 
Charenton.  His  defence,  De  Imputatione  primi  Peccati,  including  an  exam¬ 
ination  of  the  decree  of  Charenton,  was  published,  1655,  the  year  of  his 
death.  Opera,  Franeker,  1699;  Aubencit,  1702,  2,  4to.  Comp.  A.  Schweizer , 
in  Herzog's  Encycl.,  and  in  Centraldosunen,  ii.  319.  Aymar ,  Synodes  Nat. 
ii.  778.  Gass,  ii.  347.] 

4  [Claude  Pajon,  b.  1626,  studied  in  Saumur;  Prof,  of  theology  there, 
after  Amyraut’s  death,  1666;  died  1685.  He  denied  the  immediate  con- 
cursus  in  providence,  and  the  immediate  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
conversion.  See  Schweizer ,  ubi  supra,  ii.  564-663.  Gass ,  ii.  359,  s^.] 

6  [Schweizer ,  in  Herzog  (Am.  transl.  i.  132),  says,  the  difference  between 
Armitiianism  and  Arayraldism  is  “  an  essential  one.  The  Arminian  has  a 
gratia  universalis  sub  conditione  fidei,  in  opposition  to  the  Reformed  doc¬ 
trine  of  a  gratia  particulars  dbsoluta ;  the  Amyraldian,  on  the  contrary, 
assumes  a  gratia  universalis  hypothetica  (i.  e.,  sub  conditione  fidei),  in  order 
the  better  to  defend  the  rigid  particularism  of  election  according  to  the  Re¬ 
formed  view.”] 

*  [Blondel,  as  cited  by  Haag,  La  France  Protestante,  iv.  p.  308  (Schweizer, 
ii.  319),  says,  that  Placseus,  in  opposition  to  the  view  of  Pighius  and  Catha- 
rini  (Rom.  Cath.),  that  sin  comes  to  us  only  by  the  imputation  of  Adam’s 
sin,  defended  the  theses,  that  corruption  could  not  originate  from  imputation, 
and  that  original  sin  passed  over  from  Adam  to  all  his  descendants.] 

7  [Cappel  was  born  1585,  Prof,  at  Saumur,  1632,  died  1658.  The  For¬ 
mula  Consensus  maintained,  against  him,  the  inspiration  of  the  Hebrew 
vowel  points.  See  Hertheau  in  Herzog. ] 

9  [John  Daille  (Dallseus),  born  1594,  from  1626  to  1670,  preached  in 
Paris.  De  Usu  Patrum,  1656,  and  often  ;  Eng.  version  by  Thos.  Smith, 
1651  (from  the  French  of  that  year)  :  revised  ed.  Phila.,  1842.  On  his 
part  in  the  Amyraldian  controversy,  see  Schweizer,  ii.  387-439.  Gassl 
ii.  345.] 

9  [David  Blondel,  born  1591,  died  1655.  His  Primacy  of  the  Church 


182 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


appeared  1641.  On  his  relation  to  the  school  of  Saumur,  see  Schweizer ,  ii. 
304,  305.] 

10  [2>*  Moulin  (Peter  Molinseus),  born  1568,  Prof,  at  Sedan,  1626,  died 
1658.  See  C.  Schmidt ,  in  Herzog ,  and  Schweizer,  ubi  supra.] 

11  [On  the  Formula  Consensus,  and  its  fate,  see  Schweizer ,  ii.  439-542, 
663,  sq.  Gass ,  ii.  353-6.] 


§  225  b. 

[THEOLOGY  IN  ENGLAND  AND  SCOTLAND.] 

[The  Anglican  theology,  like  its  polity,  was  gradually  shaped, 
and  occupied  an  intermediate  position  between  the  Roman  Catholic 
and  the  Reformed  systems.  Doctrinal  controversies  were  subordi¬ 
nated  to  ecclesiastical  questions.  The  earlier  reformers,1  Cranmer, 
Latimer ,  Hooper ,  Ridley ,  opposed  chiefly  the  practical  abuses  of 
the  papacy.  The  exiles  under  Mary  returned  (1559)  from  Frank¬ 
fort,  Zurich,  and  Geneva,  imbued  with  the  principles  of  the  Re¬ 
formed  (Calvinistic)  system.  But  the  polity  and  faith  of  England, 
as  shaped  under  Elizabeth,  contained  conflicting  elements,  repre¬ 
sented  respectively  by  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  the 
Thirty-Nine  Articles  (which  latter  were  Calvinistic).2  An  interme¬ 
diate  position  was  occupied  by  Jewel*  Grindal ,  Pilkington ,  and 
Abp.  Parker .*  The  Puritan  principles  were  advocated  by  Hooper ,a 
Thos.  Cartwright ,6  Wm.  Perkins .7  As  late  as  1578,  Calvin’s  Cate¬ 
chism  was  ordered  to  be  used  in  the  University  of  Cambridge. 
The  Lambeth  Articles  of  1595,8  taught  the  strictest  scheme  of 
predestination.  Ireland  was  represented  by  the  learning  and  or¬ 
thodoxy  of  archbishop  Usher .9  Scotland,  with  the  Presbyterian 
system,  also  received  from  John  Knox  the  principles  of  the  school 
of  Geneva,  advocated  by  Andreiv  Melville ,  Henderson ,  and  others.10 
At  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  beginning  of  the  seven¬ 
teenth,  the  Anglican  system  was  represented  by  Richard  Hooker 11 
and  others  ;12  the  episcopal  system  was  defended  by  Donne ,  Field , 
Andrews ,  and  Jackson.13  Abp.  Laud,1*  pressed  the  high  church  and 
sacramentarian  tendencies,  in  conjunction  with  Arminian  views, 
( Montagu  and  Mainwaring ,)lb  to  their  extreme  consequences,  op¬ 
posed  in  vain  by  the  moderate  Puritans,16  Davenant ,  Bp.  Reynolds , 
Bp.  Hall,  Williams,  Carleton,  and  Barlow.  The  conflict  of  the  systems 
resulted  in  the  temporary  triumph  of  Presbyterianism  and  Calvin¬ 
ism  in  the  Westminster  Assembly 11  followed  by  the  reaction  under 
the  Restoration  (Charles  II.)  The  Anglican  system  was  subse¬ 
quently  developed  and  expounded  in  a  prolific  and  learned  theologi¬ 
cal  literature,  which  had  for  its  ideal  the  theology  of  the  church  of 


§  225.  Theology  in  England  and  Scotland.  183 

the  first  four  or  five  centuries,  (Bp.  Bull™  Jeremy  Taylor,™  Isaac 
Barrow ,  "  Bp.  Cosin*1  Abp.  Bramhall ,**  Stillingfleet ,  Waterland, 
Sherlock ,  Abps.  King  and  Wake ,  and  was  ably  defended  in 
its  main  doctrinal  position  by  the  non-jurors,  Hickes,  Leslie,  Ket- 
tlewell,  Johnson,  Brett,  and  others).23  It  reached  the  term  of  its 
development  about  the  close  of  this  period  (1720).  It  was  exhibited 
in  its  most  systematic  form  in  the  works  of  Beveridge ,**  Pearson ,25 
and  Burnet  P  Yet  there  were  ..not  wanting  those  in  the  established 
church,  who  still  advocated  the  main  principles  of  the  Reformed 
theology  (Abp.  Leighton*1  South™  Ez.  Hopkins ,  Manton ,  Barlow , 
and  others.23)  The  more  distinctive  Puritan  theology  was  advocated 
chiefly  by  the  non-conformists,  in  thorough  treatises  and  practical 
works  by  Charnock ,30  Thomas  Watson,31  W.  Bates,3*  William 
Twisse  33  by  Flavel  and  Bunyan ,34  by  Thos.  Goodwin ,  and  many 
others  ;36  and  in  a  stricter  and  more  comprehensive  method  by 
Richard  Baxter,36  John  Owen,31  John  Howe,36  Theoph.  Gale,3* 
Thos.  Ridgeley,™  Matthew  Henry  and  CalamyP  The  Antino- 
mian  tendency  was  represented  by  Crisp  P  The  Scotch  divines,43 
and  the  New  England44  colonists  from  Great  Britain  remained  faith¬ 
ful  to  the  strict  Calvinistic  tradition.] 

[There  weTe  also  other  phases  of  theological  opinion,  of  a  less 
permanent  influence.  A  Platonizing  tendency  was  represented  by 
Cudworth ,45  More  and  Norris,™  John  Smith,  of  Cambridge,  Gale, 
Culverwell,  and  others.47  Under  Latitudinarianism  was  included  a 
somewhat  undefined  class,  as  John  Milton,™  Chillingworth ,49  arch¬ 
bishop  Tillotson, 50  Samuel  Clark, 51  Patrick,  Whitby,  Sykes,  Whiston, 
and  others.52  (The  most  important  doctrinal  controversy  was  the 
Trinitarian,  in  which  Bull,  Waterland,  Samuel  Clarke,  Whiston, 
Sherlock,  Watts,  South,  Stillingfleet,  and  Allix,  bore  a  part.  See 
§  234,  262.)] 

V 

1  [The  works  of  the  early  English  Reformers  are  published  most  com¬ 
pletely  by  the  Parker  Society,  1840-1855,  in  55  vols.  Legh  Richmond’s 
Fathers  of  the  English  Church,  8  vols.,  1807-1812,  contains  the  works  of 
Frith ,  Barnes,  Lancelot,  Ridley,  and  other  confessors  under  Henry  VIII. 
Thomas  Cranmer  was  born  1589,  Abp.  Canterb.,  1532,  burnt  at  the  stake, 
Oxford,  Mar.  25,  1556.  He  had  chief  part  in  drawing  up  the  Prayer 
Books  (1549,  1552),  the  Catechism  of  1548,  and  the  XLII.  Articles  of  1553. 
In  the  Homilies,  he  wrote  that  on  Justification,  1547.  Cranmer’s  Bible, 
1539.  Works,  Miscel.  Writings  and  Letters,  ed.  J.  E.  Coxe,  for  Parker  Soc.* 
2  vols.,  1844.  Defence  of  Sacrament,  1550;  and  Answer  to  Stephen  Gard¬ 
ner,  on  Eucharist,  1580,  4to.  (Lat.  transl.  of  Defence  by  Sir  John  Cheke, 
1557).  Works  by  Jenkyas,  4,  8vo.,  1834.  Life  by  Strype,  Le  Bas,  BL  J. 
Todd,  and  others.  Compare  Rev.  J.  J.  Blunt,  in  Quarterly  Review,  rep. 
in  his  Essays,  1860.  On  Cranmer  and  his  theological  position,  see  Corres¬ 
pondence  between  the  Bp.  of  Exeter  and  T.  B.  Macaulay,  Lond^  1861. 
Hugh  Latimer,  b.  1470;  bp.  Worcester,  1535  ;  burnt  at  Oxford*  1555* 


184 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Works  by  G.  E.  Corrie ,  for  Parker  Soc.,  2  vols.,  1845  (with  Life  by  Wat¬ 
kins,  2  vols.,  1824.)  Life  by  G.  L.  Duyckink,  N.  Y.,  1861. — Nicholas  Rid¬ 
ley,  bishop  of  Rochester,  1548,  of  London,  1550,  burnt,  1555.  Works,  for 
Parker  Soc.,  by  H.  Christmas,  1841.] 

2  [See  above  §  222,  note  6.  See  also  note  15  below.  In  the  Arian  con¬ 
troversy,  Dr.  Waterland  in  his  “  Case  of  Arian  Subscription,”  took  the  ground 
against  Clarke,  that  an  Arian  could  not  subscribe,  to  which  Sykes  replied, 
that  an  Arian  might,  as  well  as  an  Arminian,  since  the  Articles  were  Cal- 
vinistic.  Waterland  published  a  “  Supplement.”  See  also  Toplady,  1769, 
and  again,  1774,  “  Historic  Proof  of  the  Doctrinal  Calvinism  of  the  Church 
of  England,”  2  vols.  Overton,  True  Churchman  Ascertained,  1801,  on  the 
same  side ;  in  reply,  Archb.  Daubeny,  Vindici*  Ecclesi*  Anglican*,  and 
Dean  Kipling,  Articles  of  the  Church  of  Eng.  proved  to  be  not  Calvinistic. 
Dr.  Richard  Laurence,  Reg.  Prof,  in  Oxf.,  the  Bampton  Lect.,  1844,  4th 
ed.,  1853,  viz.,  An  Attempt  to  illustrate  those  Articles  of  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land,  improperly  considered  Calvinistic.  Bp.  Tomline ,  Refutation  of  Cal¬ 
vinism,  1811.  W,  D.  Matthias ,  of  Dublin,  Inquiry  into  the  Doctrine 
of  the  Reformation,  on  the  Calvinistic  side ;  and  also  Ed.  Williams 
(b.  1730,  d.  1813),  Defence  of  Modern  Calvinism  against  Bp.  Tomline, 
1812.  W.  Goode  (Dean  of  Ripon),  the  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England 
as  to  the  Effects  of  Baptism  in  the  Case  of  Infants,  enters  largely  into  the 
same  topic.  See  also  Thos.  Scott,  Evang.  Doctrine  defended  against  Bp. 
Tomline,  in  his  works,  vols.  7  and  8.  Comp.  Brit,  and  For.  Ev.  Rev.,  Jan., 
1861,  on  Theology  of  Church  of  England.] 

8  [ John  Jewel,  b.  1522,  bp.  of  Salisbury,  1560,  died,  1571.  “  The  Church  of 
England  may  be  best  studied  in  the  writings  of  Jewel :”  Warburton.  “  It  may 
be  said  of  his  surname,  nomen  omen  Fuller.  His  Apologia  Eccles.  Anglic., 
1522.  (Eng.  transl.  by  Lady  Ann  Bacon,  1562,  and  several  others,  last  by 
Russell,  Oxf.,  1840),  and  Defence  of  the  same  against  Hardinge,  1567,  have 
been  often  reprinted.  Works,  1609,  1611,  etc. ;  ed.  by  Jelf,  8  vols.,  1847-8, 
and  for  Parker  Soc.,  by  Aiyre,  4,  1845-50.  Life  by  Le  Bas,  1835,  and  in 
Wordsworth's  Eccles.  Biog.] 

4  [Edmund  Grindel  (Gryndall),  b.  1517,  bp.  London,  1559,  abp.  York, 
1570,  of  Canterb.,  1575,  d.  1583.  Remains,  for  Parker  Soc.,  by  Nicholson, 
1843.  Life,  by  Strype,  1710. — James  Pilkington,  b.  1520,  bp.  Durham, 
1561,  d.  1575.  Works,  for  Parker  Soc.,  by  Scholefield,  1842. — Matthew 
Parker,  b.  1504,  abp.  Canterb.,  1559,  d.  1575  ;  revised  Bishop’s  Bible,  1568  ; 
De  Antiq.  Brit.  Eccl.,  1605.] 

6  [John  Hooper,  b.  1495,  bp.  Worcester  and  Gloucester,  1550;  martyr, 
1554.  Works,  for  Parker  Soc.,  by  Carr  and  Nevinson,  2  vols.,  1843-52. 
“The  first  Puritan.”  Hopkins'  Hist,  of  Puritans,  Bost.,  1858,  vol.  i.] 

8  [Thos.  Cartwright,  b.  1535,  Prof.  Canbr.,  1570-1,  died  1603.  Contest 
with  Whitgift  on  the  Admonition  to  Parliament,  1638,  involving  the  ques¬ 
tions  of  episcopacy  and  the  liturgy. — John  Whitgift,  b.  1530,  Prof.  Div. 
Camb.,  1663,  abp.  Cant.,  1583,  d.  1603.  Works,  by  Parker  Soc.,  ed.  John 
Ayre,  3,  Camb.,  1851-4.  Life,  by  Stryke;  by  Sir  E.  Paul;  Wordsworth's 
Eccl.  Biog.  Cooper's  Athen*  Cantabrig.,  vol.  ii.  (1586-1609)  describes  92 
works  written  by  or  ascribed  to  Whitgift.] 


§  225.  Theology  in  England  and  Scotland. 


185 


7  [  William  Perkins ,  b.  1558,  d.  1602.  Works,  3  fob,  Lond.,  1616. 
Ethica  Christ.,  Basil,  1609.  His  Anatomy  of  Conscience,  the  first  methodi¬ 
cal  work  in  practical  theology.  William  Whitaker ,  b.  1547,  Prof,  at  Cam¬ 
bridge,  1579,  d.  1595,  also  a  Calvinist.  On  Bellarmine,  Parker  Soc.,  1849. 
Works,  Genev.,  1610,  2,  fol. — John  Preston ,  b.  1587,  d.  1628.  See  works 
in  Darling ,  Cycl.  Bibl.  Ralph  Hrownrig ,  bp.  Exeter,  b.  1592,  d.  1659.] 

8  [The  Nine  Lambeth  Articles ,  were  occasioned  by  Peter  Baroe  (French) 

Prof,  in  Cambridge,  and  Barret,  of  Caius  College,  teaching  universal  re¬ 
demption  ;  they  inculcated  predestination  and  reprobation.  They  had  no 
formal  church  sanction  in  England,  but  were  adopted  by  the  Dublin  Con¬ 
vocation,  in  Ireland,  1615.  “  The  Reformation  in  England  ended  by  show - 

ing  itself  a  decidedly  Calvinistic  movement ;”  Christ.  Remembrancer,  Loud., 
1845.  The  theological  professors  at  Cambridge  and  Oxford  were  Calvinistic 
for  fifty  years  from  Elizabeth’s  accession.  Bucer  and  Peter  Martyr  were 
called  by  Cranmer  to  the  chairs  of  divinity  in  Cambridge  and  Oxford,  dur¬ 
ing  the  reign  of  Edward.  Cranmer,  too,  in  1552,  invited  Calvin,  Bullinger, 
and  Melancthon  to  England,  to  aid  in  drawing  up  a  Confession  of  Faith  for 
the  Protestant  churches.  Calvin’s  Consensus  Genevensis  (on  Predestina¬ 
tion),  also  had  influence  upon  the  framers  of  the  Articles ;  see  Zurich  Let¬ 
ters  (by  Parker  Soc.)  vol.  3,  p.  325,  where  a  letter  by  Traheren,  dean  of 
Chichester,  to  Bullinger  is  given,  in  which  he  says  :  “  The  greater  number 
among  us,  of  whom  I  own  myself  to  be  one,  embrace  the  opinion  of  John 
Calvin,  as  being  perspicuous  and  agreeable  to  Holy  Scripture.”  See  on  the 
whole  subject,  Brit,  and  For.  Evang.  Rev.,  June,  1861,  on  Melancthon  and  the 
theology  of  the  Church  of  England.  The  same  article,  p.  214,  cites  from 
bp.  Jewel’s  letter  to  Peter  Martyr,  1562,  after  the  articles  had  been  passed : 
“  As  to  matters  of  doctrine,  we  have  pared  everything  away  to  the  very 
quick,  and  do  not  differ  from  your  doctrine  by  a  nail’s  breadth.”  Zurich  Let¬ 
ters,  2d  series,  p.  59.  See  Princeton  Review,  July,  1855,  on  Zurich  Letters 
and  Character  of  the  English  Reformation.] 

9  [ James  Usher,  b.  1580,  bp.  Meath,  1620  ;  abp.  Armagh.,  1624,  d.  1655. 
Wliole  works,  by  Elrington,  16  vols.,  8vo,,  Dubl.,  1847,  sq.  (vol.  3,  on  Rom. 
Cath.  Controversy ;  vol.  4,  Gottschaleus  de  Predest. ;  vol.  7,  De  Symbol. 
Apostol. ;  vols.  8-10,  Annals,  etc).  He  proposed  a  modified  episcopacy. 
Body  of  Divinity,  3d  ed.  fob,  1 648  (which  “  he  permitted,  though  not  liking 
the  whole  see  Notes  and  Qu.  iv.)] 

10  [ John  Knox,  b.  at  Gifford,  East  Lothian,  1505  ;  Geneva,  1552-5  ;  died, 
1572.  Conf.  of  Faith,  1560.  Book  of  Discipline,  1560.  Hist,  of  Ref., 
1584,  1732.  Works  by  Laing ,  4  vols.,  1846,  sq.  Life,  by  Thos.  McCrie , 
Edinb.,  1840. — Andrew  Melville,  b.  1545,  Principal  St.  Mary’s  College,  St. 
Andrews,  1580  ;  Prof,  at  Sedan;  d.  1622.  Life,  by  McCrie,  2  vols.,  1824. 
— Alex.  Henderson,  b.  1583,  Prof.  St.  Andrews  ;  leader  of  the  Presbyte¬ 
rians  ;  d.  1646.  Life,  by  McCrie  and  by  John  Alton ,  1836. —  George  Gil¬ 
lespie,  in  Westminster  Assembly,  d.  1648;  chief  work,  Aaron’s  Rod 
Blossoming,  Lond.,  1646  (defence  of  Presbyterianism). — Robert  Baillie,  b. 
1599,  Principal  of  Univ.  of  Glasgow,  d.  1662.  Letters  and  Journals  (2  vols., 
1775),  3  vols.  by  Laing ,  1841-3. — Samuel  Rutherford,  b.  1600  (?),  Prof. 


186 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


St.  Andrews,  1639,  d.  1665.  Plea  for  Presbyterie,  1642  ;  Christ  dying, 
1647  ;  Letters,  1638  (1824.)] 

11  [. Richard  Hooker ,  b.  1553  (  ?  ),  master  of  Temple,  1585,  Prebendary 
of  Salisbury,  1591,  died  1600.  His  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  more  than  any  sin¬ 
gle  work,  has  given  shape  to  the  Anglican  divinity  :  first  4  Books,  1593,  fol. ; 
fifth,  1597  ;  seventh,  1617  ;  sixth  and  eighth,  posthumous,  1648,  4to.  inter¬ 
polated  (?).  Works,  fob,  1723.  Keble's  ed.,  1836,  4,  8vo.,  repr.,  3,  8vo., 
1841  (New  York,  2,  1857.)  On  first  ed.,  see  Notes  and  Qu.  2d  Series,  xi.  45. 
An  edition  by  B.  Hanbury,  1830,  3,  8vo.  (with  Life  of  Cartwright),  from  the 
Puritan  side.  Abridgments,  1705  ;  Dubh,  1773  (Hemming’s) ;  Analysis 
by  Collinson,  1810.  Life,  by  Isaak  Walton,  1665,  and  often:  by  Gauden  (in 
his  ed.  of  1662).  Comp.  Lowndes'  Brit.  Lit.  “  There  is  no  learning  which 
this  man  hath  not  searched  into  ;  nothing  too  hard  for  his  understanding 
Stapleton.  “The  adamantine  and  imperishable  worth  of  Hooker  in  his 
Eccl.  Pol. Dr.  Parr.  Comp.  Allibone ,  Diet,  of  Anthors.  The  work  was 
in  reply  to  Mr.  Travers,  of  the  Temple,  who  followed  the  views  of  Cartwright, 
whose  lectures  were  prohibited  by  Abp.  Whitgift ;  Travers  published  a 
Memorial,  to  which  Hooker  replied. — Martin  Marprelate  Tracts ,  1580,  sq ., 
repr.  as  Puritan  Discipline  Tracts,  Lond.,  1843.  Comp.  Maskell’s  Hist.,  1845.] 

12  [“  Hooker  was  not  permitted  to  occupy  the  field  of  controversy  alone, 
Bilson ,  Bancroft ,  Bridges ,  Cosin ,  and  Dr.  Adrian  Saravia,  a  German,  bene- 
ficed  in  England,  appeared  on  the  same  side.  Bradshaw  defended  the  cause 
of  the  Puritans  against  Bilson,  Fenner  against  Bridges,  Morrice  against 
Cosin,  and  Beza  against  Saravia,  although  the  press  was  shut  against  them 
by  law,  and  their  books  could  only  be  published  by  stealth.”  Bogue ,  cited 
by  Allibone,  u.  s. — Thos.  Bilson ,  b.  1536,  d.  1616  ;  bp.  Worcester,  1596, 
of  Winchester,  1597  :  The  Perpetual  Government  of  Christ’s  Church,  1593, 
and  often;  new  ed.  by  Eden,  Oxf.,  1842. — Rd.  Bancroft,  b.  1544,  abp.  Can- 
terb.,  1604,  d.  1610.  His  sermon,  12  Jan.,  1588,  at  St.  Paul’s  cross,  started 
afresh  the  high  church  claims,  and  aroused  a  long  controversy;  John 
Bridges ,  bp.  Oxford,  d.  1618.  Defence  of  Gov.  of  Church  of  England, 
1587. —  Cosin  (see  below). — Adrian  Saravia,  b.  at  Artois,  1531,  Prof. 
Leyden,  1582,  Prebendary  of  Canterb.,  etc.,  d.  1613  ;  Divers.  Tract.  Theol., 
1611,  etc. — On  the  same  side,  John  Overall,  b.  1559,  bp.  Norwich,  d.  1619  : 
Convocation  Book,  1606  ;  repr.  Oxf.,  1844.  Rd.  Crakanthorp ,  b.  1567, 
chaplain  to  Charles  I.,  d.  1624  ;  Defens.  Eccl.  Angh,  1625,  new  ed.  in  Lib. 
Angl.  Cath.  Theol.,  1844.  Henry  Hammond,  1605-1660.  Works,  4  fob, 
1774. — Henry  Thorndike,  Prebendary  of  Westminster,  d.  1672.  Theol. 
Works  in  Lib.  of  Angl.  Cath.  Theol.,  5  vol.,  1844,  sq.  On  Government  of 
Churches;  of  Religious  Assemblies;  Principles  of  Christ.  Truth,  etc. —  Wil¬ 
liam  Bradshaw ,  Puritan,  b.  1571,  d.  1618;  on  English  Puritanism,  1605 
(Latin  transl.  by  Ames);  on  Justification,  1615  (Lat.  1618). —  William 
Fenner,  b.  1600,  d.  1640  (?)  Works,  fob,  Lond.,  1658.  Jos.  Bingham's 
Antiquities  (1708-1722,  1726,  Latin  by  Grischovius ,  Hal.,  1724-29,  1751  ;) 
ed.  Pitman.  9  vols.,  1840  ;  new  ed.  by  Rd.  Bingham,  belong  in  part  to  the 
same  controversy.  Wm.  Forbes,  b.  1585,  bp.  Edinb.,  and  died  1634  ;  Con- 
siderationes  Modestse  ;  also  translated  into  English.] 

13  [ John  Donne,  b.  1573,  ordained  at  the  age  of  42,  d.  1631,  an  eloquent 


§  225.  Theology  in  England  and  Scotland. 


187 


preacher  and  poet ;  Dryden  calls  him,  “  the  greatest  wit  of  our  nation.” 
Works,  fol.  1640, 1644,  1660;  new  ed.  6  vols.,  8vo.,  by  Alford,  Oxf.,  1839. 
(Comp.  Allibone ,  u.  s.) — Rd.  Field ,  dean  of  Gloucester,  b.  1561,  d.  1610; 
Of  the  Church,  five  Books,  1606,  3d  ed.  1635  ;  for  Eccl.  Hist.  Soc.,  4  vols., 
1847-1852.  Lancelot  Andrews,  b.  1555,  bp.  Winchester,  1618,  d.  1626. 
Ninety-six  Sermons,  5,  8vo.,  Oxf.  Lib.,  1841-3  ;  Tortura  Torti,  ibid.,  1851 ; 
Responsio  ad  Apolog.  Card.  Bellarmini,  ibid.,  1852. — Thos.  Jackson ,  dean 
of  Peterborough,  b.  1579,  d.  1640  ;  originally  a  Calvinist,  became  an  Armi- 
nian.  Works,  3  fob,  1673  ;  new  ed.,  Oxf.  12  vols.,  1844  ;  12  Books  on  the 
Apost.  Creed  ;  Treatise  on  Church,  ed.  by  Goode ,  1843.  Synoptical  Table 
of  his  wrorks,  J.  H.  Todd,  1838.  Thos.  Fuller,  b.  1608,  Prebend.  Sarum,  d. 
1661,  Church  Hist.  Britain,  Nichols’  ed.,  3  vols.,  1837.  Worthies  of  Eng¬ 
land  ;  Holy  War ;  Holy  State,  etc.] 

14  [  William  Laud,\>.  1573,  abp.  Canterb.,  1633,  beheaded,  1645.  Re¬ 
mains,  by  Henry  Wharton,  2  fob,  1695-1700.  Works,  in  Lib.  Angl.  Cath. 
Theob,  Oxf.,  5  vols.,  1847,  sq .  Life,  by  C.  Webb  Le  Has ,  1836  ;  by  J.  P . 
Lawson,  1829;  also  by  Heylin,  1668,  and  Prynne.  Conference  between 
Laud  and  Fisher  (vol.  2  of  works).  On  his  Corresp.  with  Vossius,  see 
Church  Rev.,  Jan.,  1854.  Comp.  Brit.  Critic,  vi.  xix.  New  York,  Rev.,  x.] 

15  [ Richard  Montagu  (Mountague),  b.  1578,  bp.  of  Chichester  and  Nor¬ 
wich,  1638,  d.  1641.  Analect.  Eccles.  Exercitat.,  fob,  1622.  On  Baronins, 
Orig.  Eccl.  i.,  1636.  Acts  and  Monum.  of  the  Church,  1642.  Montagu 
was  Laud’s  agent  in  introducing  Arminian  views.  He  published,  1625,  his 
Appello-Csesarem,  to  show  that  the  formularies  of  the  church  allowed 
Calvinism  ;  replied  to  by  bp.  Carleton,  of  Chichester,  see  next  note.  In 
1630,  the  jurist,  Prynne,  published  his  “  Anti-Arminianism,  or  the  Church 
of  England’s  old  antithesis  to  new  Arminianism  ;  in  which  he  said  that  up 
to  that  time  only  five  men  in  England  had  publicly  defended  Arminian  views 
viz.,  Barret  and  Baroe  (note  8).  Thompson,  who  wrote  against  the  Perse¬ 
verance  of  the  Saints,  to  which  Prof.  Abbot,  bp.  of  Salisbury,  replied ; 
Montagu  and  Dr.  Thos.  Jackson,  who  was  originally  a  Calvinist. — Peter 
Heylin’ s  Historia  Quinqu-Articularis,  1659,  is  a  prejudiced  and  untrust¬ 
worthy  work  on  the  Arminian  side  :  replied  to  by  Henry  Hickman,  in  his 
Animadversiones,  1673.  Comp.  Brit,  and  For.  Ev.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1861.  An 
anonymous  work  by  Samuel  Hoard,  rector  of  Morton,  or  Moreton,  in  Essex, 
was  published  in  1633,  entitled,  God’s  Love  to  Mankind,  manifested  by  dis¬ 
proving  his  Absolute  Decree  for  their  Damnation.  Bp.  Davenant  replied  to 
it  in  his  Animadversione,  1641.  Dr.  William  Twisse  also  answered  it,  1653. 
And  Amyraut,  of  Saumur,  refuted  it  in  his  elaborate  treatise,  Doctrinse 
Joannis  Calvini  de  absoluto  Reprobationis  Decreto  Defensio  adversus  Scrip- 
torem  anonymum,  4to.,  Salmurii,  1641.  John  Hales,  b.  1584;  at  Synod  of 
Dort,  1618;  d.  1656.  Golden  Remains,  1673.  Letters  from  Dort,  etc. 
Works,  by  Lord  Hailes ,  3  vols.,  1765.  It  is  said  that  Hales  became  an 
Arminian  at  the  Synod  of  Dort.  On  Jackson,  see  note  13,  above. — On 
King  James’s  injunction  to  bishops,  respecting  Dort,  see  Neal's  Hist.  Puri¬ 
tans,  vol.  2  ;  Peter  Heylin' s  Hist,  of  the  Five  Articles.] 

16  [John  Davenant ,  b.  1576,  bishop  of  Salisbury,  1621,  d.  1641.  Trea¬ 
tise  on  Justification,  1631  (in  Latin),  transh,  2,  8vo.,  Lond  ,  1844-6.  Ex- 


188 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


position  of  Colos.,  1627,  transl.  with  Life,  by  Josiah  Allport ,  2  vols.,  1831. 
De  Morte  Christi  et  de  Prsedest.,  fob,  Cantab.,  1630.  Pralect.  de  Justitia 
habituali,  1631,  etc.  Joseph  Hall ,  b.  1574,  at  Synod  of  Dort,  bp.  Exeter, 
1627,  of  Norwich,  1641,  d.  1656.  New  ed.  of  works,  by  Pratt,  1808,  10  vols. ; 
by  Peter  Hall,  12  vols.,  1837-9. —  George  Carleton ,  bishop  of  Llandaff, 
1618,  at  Synod  of  Dort,  d.  1628.  Examination  of  Montagu  on  Pelagianism 
and  Arminianism,  1626. — Ed.  Reynolds ,  b.  1599,  bp.  Norwich,  1660,  d.  1676. 
Works,  fob,  1658,  1679  ;  6  vols.,  8vo-.,  1826,  by  Rivelay  (new  ed.  proposed 
by  Nichol,  Edinb.)  Ralph  Hrowning ,  b.  1592,  bp.  of  Exeter,  d.  1659. 
Serm.,  fob,  Lond.,  1645  ;  a  very  able  divine.  John  Prideaux ,  b.  1578,  bp. 
Worcester,  1641,  d.  1650.  XXII.  Lectiones  de  totidem  Religionis  Capitibus, 
fob,  Oxon.,  1648.  Fasciculus  Controvers.  Theolog.,  etc.,  1664.] 

17  [See  §  224,  last  paragraph  of  notes.] 

18  [ George  Bull ,  b.  1634,  bp.  St.  David’s,  1705,  d.  1 710  ;  Harmonia 
Apostol.  (Paul  and  James  on  Justification),  1670,  transl.  by  Wilkinson,  1801. 
Oxf.,  1842.  Defensio  Fidei  Nicenae,  1685  ;  new  transl.  Oxf.,  2  vols.,  1851-2. 
Judicium  Eccles.  Cathol. . .  .de  necessitate  credendi  quod. . .  .Jesus  Christus 
sit  verus  Deus,  transl.  York,  1825  (for  which  Bossuet  transmitted  “the  con¬ 
gratulations  of  the  whole  clergy  of  France”).  Latin  works,  ed.  Grabe1 
1703.  Sermons  and  Disc.,  with  Life,  by  Rob.  Nelson ,  4  vols.,  1713  ;  3  vols., 
1816,  1840.  Works,  ed.  Burton ,  8  vols.,  1827,  1846.  Latin  works,  transl. 
in  Angl.  Cath.  Lib.] 

19  [ Jeremy  Taylor ,  b.  1613,  sequestered,  1642,  bp.  Down  and  Connor,  1660, 
d.  1667.  Works  collected  by  Heber ,  15  vols.,  1822,  3d  ed.,  1839  ;  by  Eden , 

10  vols.:  Liberty  of  Prophesying;  Unum  Necessariuin — on  Repentance; 
Deus  justificatus — on  Original  Sin;  Real  Presence;  Dissuasive  from 
Popery  ;  Rule  of  Conscience,  etc.  Biography,  by  R.  A.  Wilmott,  1847.] 

20  [Isaac  Barrow ,  b.  1630,  Master  of  Trinity  Colb,  Cambr.,  1672,  d.  1677. 
Theol.  works  by  Tillotson,  3  vols.,  fob,  1683,  vol.  4,  1687  ;  1741  :  in  8  vols., 
Oxf.,  1830.  Eng.  works,  New  York,  3  vols.,  1847.  Sermons  on  Creed. 
Pope’s  Supremacy.  Comp.  Alliboned\ 

21  [John  Cosin,  b.  1590,  bp.  Durham,  1663,  d.  1672.  Works  in  Lib. 
Angl.  Cath.  Theol.,  Oxf.,  5  vols.,  1843-53.  Scholastical  Hist.  Canon,  1683  ; 
of  Transubstantiation,  167 6  (in  Latin,  1675),  etc. 

22  [John  Bramhall ,  b.  1593,  abp.  Armagh,  1662,  d.  1663.  Works,  5  vols., 
in  Lib.  Angl.  Cath.  Theol.,  Oxf.,  1842-5.] 

23  [Edward  Stilling  fleet,  b.  1635,  dean  St.  Paul’s,  1678,  bp.  Worcester, 
1689,  d.  1699.  Works,  6  fob,  Lond.,  1710.  Origines  Sacrse  (1 70 1 ,  1837). 
Orig.  Britan.,  repr.,  1842.  Unreasonableness  of  Separation.  Doctrine  of 
Christ’s  satisfaction  (1697—1700).  Yind.  of  Trinity.  Letters  to  Locke,  1697. 
Grounds  of  Prot.  Religion,  2d  ed.,  1681,  repr.,  2  vols.,  1844.  Against  In¬ 
fallibility  of  Rome,  1673,  etc. —  William  Sherlock,  dean  of  St.  Paul’s,  b. 
1641,  d.  1707.  Knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ,  1674.  Church  Unit}7,  1681. 
Summary  of  Controversies  with  Church  of  Rome.  Preservative  against 
Popery,  1688  (in  Gibson's  Preserv.  xi.,  104.)  Religious  Assemblies,  etc. 
— Daniel  Waterland,  b.  1683,  archd.  of  Middlesex,  1730,  d.  1740.  Works, 

11  vols.  in  12,  Oxf.,  1823-28;  6  vols.,  1843;  Life,  by  bp.  Van  Mildert . 
Vindication  of  Christ’s  Divinity  in  Reply  to  Clarke.  Moyer  Lectures.  Hist. 


§  225.  Theology  in  England  and  Scotland. 


189 


of  Athanasian  Creed.  Importance  of  Doctrine  of  Trinity.  Degeneration. 
Eucharist,  etc. — Abp.  King ,  b.  1650,  bp.  Derry,  1691,  abp.  Dublin,  1702,  d. 
1729.  De  Origine  Mali,  1702;  Origin  of  Evil,  ed.  by  Edm.  Law ,  4th  ed., 
1758.  Divine  Predest.,  1710,  1815,  by  Whately,  1821.  Key  to  Divinity, 
Part  1,  1715. — Peter  Heylin,  b.  1600,  Prebend.  Westminst.,  1631,  d.  1662. 
Theologia  Veterum,  on  Apostles’  Creed,  fob,  Lond.,  1673.  Hist,  of  Ref.  of 
Chh.  of  Eng.,  1674;  2  vols.,  1849  ;  by  Robertson ,  for  Eccl.  Hist.  Soc.,  etc. 
—George  Hickes ,  b.  1642,  non-juring  bp.  of  Thetford,  1694,  d.  1715.  On 
Christ.  Priesthood,  4th  ed.,  2  vols.,  Lib.  Angl.  Cath.  Theol.,  Oxf.,  1847. 
Order  of  Lord’s  Supper.  Controversial  Discourses,  1705,  3d  ed.,  1727,  etc. 
—  Chs.  Leslie  (non-juror),  d.  1722.  Theol.  Works,  2  fol.,  1721,  7  vols.,  Oxf., 
1832.  John  Kettlewell  (non-juror),  b.  1653,  d.  1695.  Works,  2  fob,  1719. 
— Matthew  Scrivener ,  Course  of  Divinity,  fob,  1674. — John  Johnson ,  Vicar 
of  Cranbrook,  b.  1662,  d.  1725  (a  non-juror).  The  Unbloody  Sacrifice, 

2  vols.,  in  Oxf.  Lib.,  1847.  Collect,  of  Eccl.  Laws,  2,  1720,  Oxf.  1850-1  ; 
Discourses,  etc. —  William  Wake ,  b.  1657,  bp.  Lincoln,  1705,  abp.  Canterb., 
1716,  d.  1737.  Expos,  of  Doct.  of  Church  of  England,  and  Defence,  1686. 
Authority  of  Christian  Princes,  and  Appeal,  1697-8.  Comm,  on  Catechism. 
On  Convocation,  1703  (most  important  of  the  works  on  this  topic).  Transl. 
of  the  Epistles  of  the  Fathers.  Sermons  and  Disc. — Thos.  Brett ,  non-juror, 
b.  1667,  d.  1743.  An  Account  of  Church  Government,  best  ed.,  1710.  On 
Tradition,  1718  ;  Liturgies,  1720;  Episcopacy,  2d  ed.,  1728.] 

34  [  William  Beveridge ,  b.  1636,  bp.  St.  Asaph,  1704,  d.  1708.  Works, 
by  T.  H.  Horne,  9  vols.,  1824.  Eng.  Theol.  Works,  10  vols.,  Oxf.,  1844-8 
(vol.  7  contains  the  lost  MS.  Exposition  of  Art.  31-39,  discovered  by  Routh). 
On  Thirty-Nine  Articles  ;  Church  Catechism ;  Thesaurus  Theologicus  (vols. 
9,  10);  Codex  Canonum,  2  vols.,  Oxf.,  1848,  Synodicon:  Pandectae  Ca- 
nonum  ab  Eccles.  Grsec.  recept.,  2  fob,  Oxf.,  1672-82  ;  Vindication  of 
same,  1679.] 

35  [ John  Pearson,}).  1612,  Margaret  Prof.  Camb.,  1661,  bp.  Chester,  1673, 
d.  1686.  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  3d  ed.  (last  corrected  by  the  author), 
fob,  1669  ;  12th  ed.  1741  ;  Dobson's  ed.,  1840  (repr.  New  York)  ;  Burton's 
ed.,  1847;  Chevallier's ,  1849.  Minor  Theol.  Works,  ed.  Churton,  2  vols., 
Oxf.,  1844.  Vind.  Epist.  S.  Ignat.,  in  Cotelerius,  and  in  2  vols.  ed.  Churton, 
Lib.  Angl.  Cath.  Theol.,  Oxf.,  1852.  Annals  St.  Paul,  Camb.,  1825.] 

26  [ Gilbert  Burnet ,  b.  1643,  Prof,  in  Glasgow,  1669,  bp.  Salisbury,  1689, 
d.  1714-15.  Expos,  of  XXXIX.  Articles,  1699,  fob,  revised  ed.  J.  R. 
Page ,  1843,  repr.  New  York.  Vind.  of  Ordinations  of  England,  1677  (in 
Gibson's  Preservation,  2,  109.)  Hist.  Ref.  Ch.  Engl.,  vol.  i.  1679,  vol.  ii. 
1681,  vol.  iii.  1715  (The  only  work  for  which  the  English  Parliament 
voted  public  thanks,  with  a  request  for  its  continuation.  Bossuet  was  em-  * 
ployed  upon  a  reply)  ;  7  vols.,  Oxf.,  1829  ;  2  royal  8vo.,  By  Nares,  4  vols. 
(restoring  suppressed  passages).  Hist,  of  his  Own  Times,  posthumous, 
1724-34.  For  his  other  works,  see  Allibone ,  Lowndes ,  Darling. ] 

27  [. Robert  Leighton,  b.  1613,  principal  Univ.  Edinburg,  Abp.  Glasgow, 
1670-4,  d.  1684.  Exposition  of  Creed.  Theolog.  Lectures  (Praelect.  Theol., 
Lond.,  1808.)  Comm,  on  1st  Peter.  Works  by  Pearson,  4  vols.,  1830; 
also  in  2  vols.] 


190 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


28  [ Robert  South ,  b.  1633,  Prebend,  of  Westminster,  1663,  d.  1716. 
Sermons,  7  vols.,  Oxf.,  1823;  5  vols.,  1842;  Lond.  4  vols.  1843  ;  2  vols.,  1850. 
Animadversions  on  Sherlock’s  Trinity,  1693.] 

29  [ Ezekiel  Hopkins ,  b.  1633,  bp.  of  Derry,  1681,  d.- 1690.  Works  fol., 
1710;  4  8vo.,  1809  ;  2  8vo.,  1841,  with  life  by  Pratt.  Doctrines  of  Two 
Covenants,  1712. — Thomas  Manton ,  b.  1620,  d.  1677  :  “The  best  collector 
of  sense  of  the  age,”  Charnock.  Works,  5  fol.  (see  in  Darling ,  Cycl.  Bibb, 
not  complete;  new  ed.  projected  by  Nichol,  Edinb.) — John  Edwards,  b. 
1637,  d.  1716.  Theologia  Reformata,  2  fob,  Lond.,  1713;  Theol.  Ref. 
(practical  part),  fob,  1726.  Replies  to  Whitby,  Clarke,  Abp.  King  (on  Pre- 
dest.) — Anthony  Tuckney ,  b.  1599,  Reg.  Propat.,  Cambr.,  1661,  d.  1670. 
Forty  Sermons,  1776,  etc. — Thomas  Barlow ,  b.  1607,  bp.  Lincoln,  1675,  d. 
1691,  a  learned  Calvinistic  divine.  Popery,  1679.  Brutum  Fulmen  (bull  of 
Pius  V.  against  Elizabeth),  1681.  Rights  of  Bishops,  1680.  Miscl.  Cases 
and  Genuine  Remains  (posthumous,  against  B.’s  wish,  by  Sir  Peter  Pett, 
1690-1,  etc.] 

80  [Stephen  Charnock ,  b.  1628,  d.  1680.  Works  (posthumous)  2  fob, 
Lond.,  1682-3  ;  9  vols.,  8vo.,  1815,  by  Ed.  Parsons ,  with  Memoir.  Disc, 
on  the  Attributes,  2  vols.,  1834,  New  York,  with  life,  by  Symington ,  1856. 
“  Perspicuity  and  depth  ;  metaphysical  subtlety  and  evangelical  simplicity;” 
Toplady.  A  new  ed.  of  his  works  to  be  published  by  Nichol,  Edinb.] 

31  [ Thos .  Watson,  educated  at  Cambridge,  minister  in  Lond.,  1646-62, 
d.  1689.  A  Body  of  Divinity,  on  the  Assembly’s  Catechism,  fob,  1692- 
1741,  New  York,  1856.] 

32  [  William  Bates,  b.  1625,  d.  1699.  Harmony  of  Divine  Attributes  in 
Redemption  of  Man,  1697.  The  Four  Last  Things,  1691.  Works,  4  8vo., 
by  Farmer,  Lond.,  1815.  Vitae  Select.  Yirorum  (anonym.),  Lond.,  1681.] 

33  [William  Twisse,  b.  1575,  Prolocutor  of  Westminster  Assembly,  in 
1643.  Opera,  3  fob,  Amst.,  1652  (De  Yindiciis  Gratise,  agst.  Arminius ; 
De  Scientia  Media).  Edited  (with  Savile)  Bradwardine’s  De  Causa  Dei 
1618.] 

34  [ John  Flavel ,  b.  1627,  non-conform.,  d.  1691.  Whole  works,  2  fob, 
1 7 01 ,  1740;  6  vols.,  Lond.,  1820.  Fountain  of  Life.  Method  of  Grace, 
1698.  Pneumatologia,  1698.  Expos,  of  Catechism,  1692. — John  Punyan , 
b.  1628,  d.  1688.  He  wrote  as  many  works  as  he  lived  of  years  (60). 
Pilgrim's  Progress  (“  the  best  Summa  Theol.  Evangelicae  ever  produced  by 
a  writer  not  miraculously  inspired,”  Coleridge ),  original  ed.  repr.  by  Offer, 
1849.  Works,  2  fob,  1692,  and  often  ;  6  vols.  by  Mason,  1684;  best  ed.  by 
Offer,  3  vols.,  1853.  (Doctrines  of  Law  and  Grace.  Defence  of  Justif.  by 
Faith.  Life  by  Southey,  Offer ,  Philip,  1839),  etc.  On  edition  of  Pilg. 
Prog.,  see  Princeton  Rev.,  1859.  Bunyan  not  the  author  of  Vision  of  Heaven 
and  Hell ;  see  Notes  and  Qu.,  1st  series,  iii.  iv.  Cheever's  Lect.  on  Pilgrim’s 
Progress.] 

35  [Thos.  Goodwin,  b.  1600,  member  of  West.  Assembly,  Prest.  of  Mag¬ 
dalen  Colb,  Oxf.,  1649,  d.  1679.  Works,  5  fob,  1681. — Anthony  Burgess, 
(Indp.)  also  of  the  Assembly;  Vindiciae  Legis,  1646.  True  Doctrine  of 
Justif.,  1655. — Jerem.  Burroughes,  (Indp.),  b.  1599,  d.  1646  ;  see  Darling, 
u  s. — Thos.  Doolittel,  1630-1707,  Complete  Body  of  Divinity,  1723,  etc. — 


§  225.  Theology  in  England  and  Scotland. 


191 


Geo.  Walker ,  1581-1651  :  Socinianism  and  Justif.,  1641.  The  works  of 
a Sibbs,  1577-1635,  Tlios.  Adams ,  Brooks ,  d.  1680,  D.  Clarkson,  (co-pastor 
with  Owen),  1622-86,  Puritan  Divines,  to  be  republished  by  Nichol,  Edinb., 
1861,  sq.] 

36  [ Richard  JBaxter ,  b.  1615,  minister  at  Kidderminster,  1640,  d.  1691. 
He  published  168  treatises.  Practical  Works,  4,  fob,  1707  ;  23,  8vo.,  1830, 
and  4,  imp.  8vo.  Life  by  Orme.  Christian  Ethics,  Ecclesiastics,  and  Poli¬ 
tics.  Gildas  Salvianus,  the  Reformed  Pastor.  Reformed  Liturgy.  Saints’ 
Rest.  Aphorisms  on  Justif.,  1649,  and  Conf.  of  Faith,  1655  ;  of  Justif., 
1658.  Methodus  Theol.  Christianae,  1681.  Catholick  Theologie,  1675.  (See 
list  of  works  in’  Darling’s  Cycl.  Bibl.) — His  theological  system  has  been 
termed  Baxterian,  intermediate  between  Calvinism  and  Arminianism.] 

37  [ John  Oiven ,  the  most  eminent  of  the  Independent  divines,  b.  1616,  d. 
1683.  Works  by  Russell ,  21  vols.,  1826  ;  and  Comm,  on  Heb.,  7  vols.; 
new  ed.,  by  Goold ,  Edinb.,  16  vols.  Life  by  Orme.  Disc,  concerning  Holy 
Spirit.  Display  of  Arminianism.  Saints’  Perseverance.  Yindicise  Evan- 
gelicse  (agst.  Socinians).  Justification  by  Faith.  Christologia — the  Power 
of  Christ.  QeoXoyovgeva  navronada,  sive  de  Natura,  Ortu. . . .  verae  Theol., 
Brem.,  1684.] 

38  [John  Howe ,  b.  1630,  minister  in  London,  d.  1675.  Works,  2  fob, 
1724,  with  life,  by  Calamy  ;  3  vols.,  1848,  ed.  by  Hewlett ;  by  Hunt,  8  vols., 
1810-20.  New  ed.,  Edinb.,  1856,  sq.  Life  by  Rogers,  1836.  Living  Tem¬ 
ple  (“  a  masterpiece  of  profound  argumentation Williams.  Part  2  con¬ 
tains  Animadversions  on  Spinoza).  Blessedness  of  Righteous.  Work  of 
Holy  Spirit.  Possibility  of  a  Trinity  in  God.  God’s  Prescience  (“the 
most  profound,  most  philosophical,  and  most  valuable  of  his  writings 
Robert  Hall).  The  Redeemer’s  Dominion  over  the  Invisible  World.] 

39  [Theophilus  Gale,  b.  1628,  d.  1678.  The  Court  of  the  Gentiles,  1672 
(the  original  of  human  literature  from  the  Scriptures) ;  Bk.  2  is  on  Divine 
Predetermination,  a  vindication  of  Calvinism.  A  Discourse  of  Christ’s  Com¬ 
ing.  Philosophia  Generalis,  1676.  The  Ars  Sciendi,  ascribed  to  Gale  by 
Wood,  is  denied  by  Calamy  to  be  his.] 

40  [Thos.  Ridgeley,  b.  1667,  began  an  academy  for  divinity,  Lond.,  1712, 
d.  1734.  Body  of  Divinity.  Lectures  on  the  Assembly’s  Larger  Catechism, 
2,  fob,  Lond.,  1731-33;  4,  8vo.,  1844;  2  vols.,  1844;  New  York,  1855. 
Doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  8vo.,  Lond.,  1725.] 

41  [Matthew  Henry ,  b.  1662,  minister  at  Chester  and  Hackney,  d.  1714. 
Exposition  of  Old  apd  New  Test,  (from  Romans  to  the  end  by  other  hands). 
Miscel.  Works,  with  an  Appendix  on  what  Christ  is  made  to  believers,  by 
P.  Henry,  Lond.,  1830.  Edward  Calamy,  1571-1732.  Exercit.  Philos., 
1688.  Defence  of  Nonconformity,  3  vols.,  1703-5.  Inspiration,  1700.  On 
Tiin.  (1  J.  v.  7),  1722.  Nonconform.  Memorial,  3  vols.,  1802.  Autobiog., 
ed.  Rutt,  1830.] 

43  [Tobias  Crisp,  b.  1600,  rector  of  Brinkworth,  d.  1642.  Christ  Alone 
Exalted,  1643  ;  with  Notes  by  Gill,  4th  ed.,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1791.  Crisp  had 
“52  opponents”,  among  them,  Williams,  Edwards,  Lorimer,  Baxter  (1690). 
See  Nelson's  Life  of  Bulb  His  son,  Samuel  Crisp ,  publ.  Christ  made  Sin, 
1691  ;  new  ed.,  2  vols.,  1832.] 


192 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


43  [David  Calderwood,\>.  1575,  deprived  for  opposing  episcopacy  ;  in  Hol¬ 
land,  1617-23;  d.  1650.  Hist,  of  Kirk  of  S.,  1678  ;  by  Wodrow  Soc.,  8  vols., 
1842-9.  Altar  of  Damascus,  1621  ;  enlarged  Altare  Damascen.,  1708,  against 
Episcopacy.  Robert  Wodrow ,  1679-1734,  Hist,  of  Sufferings  of  Ch.  of  S., 
4  vols.,  1838  ;  Correspondence,  ed.  McCrie,  Edinb.,  3  vols.,  1842-3.  See  also 
Wodrow  Soc.  Miscellany,  by  D.  Laing ,  vol.  i.  1844. —  Thomas  Halyhurton ,  b. 
1674,  Prof.  St.  Andrews,  d.  1712.  Works,  Lond.,  1835.  On  Faith.  Nat¬ 
ural  Religion  Insufficient.  On  Justification,  etc.  Thos.  Boston,  of  Ettrick, 
1676-1732.  Works,  fob,  1767  ;  12,  8vo.,  1852,  ed.  by  S.  McMillan.  Com¬ 
plete  Body  of  Divin.  (vot.  1,  2).  Quest,  in  Div.  (vol.  6).  Human  Nature  in 
its  Fourfold  State  (vol.  8).  Robert  Fleming,  b.  1630,  minister  at  Cambus- 
lang,  d.  1694.;  Fulfilling  of  Scripture,  1726;  his  son,  Rob'.  Fleming,  d. 
1716;  Christology,  3  vols.,  Lond.,  1703-8;  Disc.,  1701 ;  Rise  and  Fall 
of  Papacy.] 

44  [The  early  New  England  colonists  carried  to  the  New  World  the  Puri¬ 
tan  form  of  Calvinism.  Many  of  its  first  pastors  and  teachers  were  men 
trained  in  the  universities  of  England.  The  Confession  and  Catechism  of 
the  Westminster  Assembly  were  adopted  by  the  Cambridge  Synod  of  1648 
(excepting  in  respect  to  church  government) ;  the  Savoy  Conf.  by  the  Bos¬ 
ton  Synod  of  1680.  At  Saybrook,  Connecticut,  1708,  the  Westminster 
and  Savoy  Conf.,  and  the  XXXIX.  Articles  were  sanctioned. — Antinomian 
Controversy  (1636-7)  in  Boston  [Mrs.  Ann  Hutchinson),  her  opinions  con¬ 
demned  by  Newtown  Synod,  1637.  Half-Way  Covenant  Controver.  1657— 
62. — John  Robinson ,  b.  1575,  about  1606  at  Scrooby,  1609  in  Leyden, 
Holland,  d.  1625  (6) — never  in  New  England,  but  his  church  ( Hrewster ) 
emigrated  to  Plymouth.  Works,  3  vols.,  1851,  by  Cong.  Bd. :  Controversy 
with  Episcopius,  1613;  Defence  of  Doctrine  of  Dort,  1624. — John  Cotton, 
b.  1585,  d.  1682,  head  lecturer  in  Trinity  College,  Camb.,  in  Boston  1633, 
shaped  the  polity  of  the  churches,  opposed  Antinomianism  ;  Keyes  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven,  1644;  Yindiciae  Clavium  ;  Way  of  the  Churches 
against  Baylie  and  Rutherford,  1648,  etc. — Thos.  Hoolcer,  b.  1586,  in  Cam¬ 
bridge  1633,  in  Hartford,  Ct.,  1636,  d.  1647;  Survey  of  Sum  of  Church 
Discipline,  1648. — John  Norton ,  b.  1606,  Ipswich,  1638,  Boston,  1655,  d. 
1663;  Letter  to  Dury :  Responsio  ad  totum  Qusest.  Syllogen  a....Guil. 
Apollonio  propos.,  etc.,  Lond.,  1648  (first  Latin  book  written  in  New  Eng., 
at  the  request  of  Apollonius  and  the  divines  of  Zealand,  on  church  contro¬ 
versies  in  England)  ;  Disc,  of  Sufferings  of  Christ,  1653  (by  order  of  the 
General  Court)  ;  The  Orthodox  Evangelist,  4to.,  1654,  £tc.  Life  by  Mather . 
— Thos.  Shepard,  b.  1605,  minister  Camb.,  (N.  E.)  1635,  d.  1649;  on  Lit¬ 
urgies,  Power  of  Keys,  etc.,  1653 ;  Parable  of  Ten  Virgins,  1660, 1663,  Aberd. 
1838.  The  Sound  Believer,  1671.  Meditat.,  1791.  Works,  Cong.  Bd.  See 
Allen  and  Sprague. — Richard  Mather,  b.  1596,  Dorchester  1636,  d.  1669  ; 
on  Justif.,  1662  ;  Reply  to  Rutherford,  1646,  etc. ;  see  Wood’s  Athen.  Oxon. 
ii.  427.  His  son,  Increase  Mather,  b.  1639,  Prest.  Harvard,  1681,  d.  1723. 
Numerous  works  :  see  Allen’s  Biog.  Diet.  Cotton  Mather,  son  of  latter,  b. 
1663,  minister  Bost.  1684,  d.  1728.  He  published  382  works;  see  Allen,  u.  s. 
Magnalia  Christi  Americana,  in  7  books,  fob,  1702,  repr.  Hartford,  2,  8vo. 
Christ.  Philosopher,  1721.  John  Davenport,  of  New  Haven,  b.  1597,  d.  1672. 


§  225.  Theology  in  England  and  Scotland. 


193 


— John  Eliot ,  apostle  to  Indians,  b.  1604,  d.  1690;  Christ.  Commonwealth, 
1650;  Indian  Bible,  1661-4,  first  Bible  printed  in  America.  Life  by  C. 
Francis. — Saiqiuel  Willard ,  b.  Jan.  31,  1639-40,  minister  Boston,  1678,  d. 
1707 ;  Body  of  Divinity  in  250  Lect.  on  Assembly’s  Catechism,  fob  Bost.> 
1726.  Comp.  J.  F.  Stearns ,  in  Am.  Theol.  Rev.,  Aug.,  I860.] 

46  [Ralph  Cudworth,  b.  1617.,  educated  at  Cambridge,  Prof.  Hebrew, 
1645,  d.  1688.  The  True  Intellectual  System  of  the  Universe,  fob,  1678  ; 
2,  4to,  1742,  and  life  by  Birch\  repr.  2,  8vo.,  at  Andover  (New  Eng.),  1837, 
with  Treatise  on  Immutable  Morality,  1731  ;  3,  8vo.,  1845,  with  transl.  of 
Mosheim’s  notes;  True  Notion  of  Lord’s  Supper,  1670,  and  often  ;  Sermon  on 
1  John  ii.  3,  4,  against  Antinomians.  Systema  Intellectual e,  ed.  Mosheim, 
2,  fob,  Jen.,  1733  ;  2,  4to.,  L.  Bat,  1773.  “  The  Latin  transl.  is  greatly  to 
be  preferred:”  Warhurton.  On  Free-will,  with  notes  by  John  Allen,  1838. 
A  number  of  Cudworth’s  unpublished  MS.  are  in  the  British  Museum  ; 
e.  g.,  on  Liberty  and  Necessity ;  the  Notion  of  Hobbes  concerning  God 
and  Spirit.  Raul  Janet ,  Essai  sur  le  mediateur  plastique  de  Cudworth. 
Paris,  I860.] 

46  [Henry  More ,  b.  1614,  d.  1687.  Theological  Works,  fob,  Lond.,  1708. 
(Mystery  of  Godliness.  Mystery  of  Iniquity.  Grounds  of  Certainty  of 
Faith.  Antidote  against  Idolatry).  Collection  of  Philosoph.  Writings,  fob, 
Lond.,  1712.  (On  Atheism;  Enthusiasm;  Immortality;  Epistoh  ad  R.  Des 
Cartes;  Conjectura  Cabbalistica).  Discourses,  Lond.,  1692.  Enchiridion 
Ethicum,  Amst.,  1695.  Divine  Dialogues,  Glasg.,  1743.  Opera,  3  fob, 
Lond.,  1675-9.  Life  by  R.  Ward,  Lond.,  1710.  Comp.  Vaughan's  Hours 
with  Mystics. — John  Norris ,  of  Bemerton,  1657,  d.  1711 :  a  Cambridge 
Platonist.  Miscellanies,  2d  ed.,  Lond.,  1690.  Theory  and  Regulation  of 
Love,  1680.  Disc,  on  Beatitudes,  4  vols.,  1699,  sq.  Reason  and  Faith,  1697. 
Theory  of  Ideal  World,  2  vols.,  1701-4  (his  chief  work,  on  basis  of  Male- 
branch  e).  Letters  to  Dodwell,  etc.] 

47  [John  Smith ,  of  Cambridge,  b.  1618,  d.  1652.  Select  Discourses,  4to., 
1660,  1673,  8vo.,  1821  (by  Worthington ),  4th  ed.  by  H.  G.  Williams,  with 
bp.  Patrick’s  Sermon,  Camb.,  1859. — The  Disc,  on  Prophecy  was  transl.  by 
Le  Clerc  for  his  Commentary  on  the  Prophets.  The  other  Discourses  are 
on  True  Way  of  Attaining  Divine  Knowledge;  Superstition;  Atheism; 
Immortality ;  Existence  and  Nature  of  God ;  Legal  and  Evang.  Righteous¬ 
ness  ;  Excellence  and  Nobleness  of  True  Religion,  etc. — See  Theophilus  Gale , 
note  39. — Rd.  Cumberland ,  b.  1632,  bp.  Peterborough,  1691,  d.  1718.  De 
Legibus  Naturae,  1672,  transl.  by  Maxwell ,  1727,  by  Towers,  Dubl.  1750,  in 
French  by  JBarbeyrac ,  Amst.,  1744.  On  Sanchoniathon,  1729.  Origines 
Gentium,  1724.  JBenjamin  Whichcote,b.  1610,  Prof.  Div.  King’s  College, 
d.  1683.  Discourses,  4  vols.  Aphorisms,  in  1703,  by  Jeffery ,  rep.  by 
Salter ,  1753.  Select  Sermons  (originally  publ.  by  Lord  Shaftesbury),  1792, 
1798. — Nathaniel  Culverwel ,  (Culverel),  d.  1650  or  1651.  An  elegant  and 
learned  Discourse  of  the  Light  of  Nature  (written  in  1646)  with  several 
other  Treatises  (The  Schism  ;  The  Act  of  Oblivion  ;  The  White  Stone ; 
Spiritual  Optics,  first  printed  1651),  etc.,  1652,  4to. ;  1654;  1661;  1669. 
The  Light  of  Nature,  ed.  by  J.  Brown,  with  Essay  by  Cairns,  Edinb.,  1857. 


194 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


This  remarkable  work  anticipated  Cumberland’s  theory  (1672)  of  indepen¬ 
dent  morality ;  it  is  not  noticed  by  Stewart,  or  Mackintosh,  or  Hallam. — 
Francis  Lee,  M.  D.,  1660,  d.  1719.  Wrote  works  tinged  with  Mysticism: 
Apoleipomena :  or  Diss.  Theol.  Mathemat.,  etc.,  2,  Lond.,  1752.  History 
of  Montanism.  On  Books  of  Ezra  and  Esdras,  1722.  Prolegomena  to  the 
historical  part  of  Grabe’s  Septuagint.  Samuel  Shaw ,  b.  1635,  d.  1691, 
rector  of  Long-Whatton,  a  divine  of  the  same  class  :  Immanuel,  or  Discovery 
of  True  Religion,  1667,  4th  cd.  1804.  Also  Joseph  Truman,  b.  1631,  d. 
1672.  A-Disc.  of  Natural  and  Moral  Impotency ;  ed.  H.  Rogers,  Lond., 
1834;  The  Great  Propitiation,  Lond.,  1669.  See  Brown’s  Preface  to  Cul- 
verwell,  ubi  supra,  p.  xxii. — Robert  Fludd  ( Re  Fluctibus ),  M.  D.,  b.  1547, 
d.  1637,  a  mystical  (Rosicrucian,  Cabalistic)  philosopher.  Works,  Oppen- 
heim,  1617-38,  6  vols.,  fol.  Mosaical  Philos.,  transl.  Lond.,  1659.  See 
Wood's  Athen.  Oxon.] 

48  [ John  Milton,  b.  1608,  Latin  Secretary  to  Cromwell,  d.  1674.  Prose 
Works,  by  Toland ,  3,  fol.,  Amst.,  1697-8;  2,  fob,  1738;  2,  4to.,  Life  by 
Birch,  1735;  Symmond,  7  vols.,  1806;  1848-53,  5  vols.;  whole  works, 
8  vols.,  1851,  Lond.  and  Boston.  Ref.  in  England;  Episcopacy;  Rea¬ 
son  of  Church  Gov.  (vol.  2) ;  on  Smectymnus  (vol.  3).  De  Doctrina 
Christ,  curav.  C.  R.  Sumner,  1825,  also  translated.  Life  by  Keightly, 
1855  ;  Masson,  vol.  1,  1859.  On  his  Religious  Life  and  Opinions,  Bib.  Sac., 
1859-60,  by  Barber ;  the  question  of  the  time  at  which  the  Christian  Doc¬ 
trine  was  written — in  his  earlier  life,  about  1640?  on  the  basis  of  Ames  and 
Wollebs.] 

49  [  William  Chilling w or th,  b.  1602,  became  a  Rom.  Cath.  through  the 
influence  of  John  Fisher,  alias  John  Perse,  but  was  brought  back  by  Laud, 
1631,  d.  1644.  Religion  of  Protestants,  1638  ;  6th  ed.  with  other  works, 
1704;  10th,  fob,  1742;  3,  8vo.,  Oxf.,  1838.  Life  by  M.  Des  Maizeaux, 
Lond.,  1725.  His  Religion  of  Protestants  was  written  in  reply  to  Edward 
Knott’s  (real  name  Matthias  Wilson,  a  Jesuit),  Charity  Mistaken.  Tillotson 
calls  C.  “  the  glory  of  the  age  and  nation.”  He  also  wrote  Nine  Sermons, 
1634  ;  The  Apostol.  Institution  of  Episcopacy,  1644.  His  great  work  also 
takes  a  position  in  contrast  with  Hooker’s  theory  of  the  rightful  authority  of 
the  national  church.] 

60  [John  Tillotson,  b.  1630,  Dean  St.  Paul’s,  1689,  Abp.  Canterb.,  1691, 

d.  1694.  Works  (254  Discourses),  3,  fob,  1752.  12  vols.,  1757  (Life  by 

Birch,  pubb,  1753  ;  vol.  xiii.  Rule  of  Faith,  3d  ed.,  1688.] 

61  [Samuel  Clarice,  b.  1673,  rector  St.  James’,  Westminster,  1709,  d.  1729. 
He  aided  in  displacing  the  Cartesian  by  the  Newtonian  system  (ed.  Rohault's 
Physics).  Boyle  Lectures,  Demonstr.  of  Being  and  Attrib.  of  God,  and 
Obligations  of  Nat.  Reh,  2  vols.,  1705-6.  Script.  Doctrine  of  Trinity,  1712 
(provoked  a  long  controversy :  Waterland,  Whitby,  Nelson,  Jackson,  etc.) 
Collect,  of  Papers  bet.  C.  and  Leibnitz,  1717  ;  on  Collins  on  Liberty,  1717 
(in  French  by  Des  Maizeaux,  1720).  Letter  to  Dodwell  on  Immortality,  etc* 
Sermons.  Works,  life  by  Hoadly,  4,  fob,  1738.] 

62  [Symon  Patrick,  bp.  Ely,  b.  1626,  d.  1707.  On  Communion,  1685, 
Tradition,  1683,  the  Eucharist,  etc.,  Comm,  on  the  O.  and  N.  Test,  and 
Apoc.  (Lowth,  Arnold,  Whitby,  and  Lowman,  added),  new  ed.,  4  vols.,  1853, 


§  226.  The  Council  of  Trent. 


195 


— Daniel  Whitby,  b.  1 638,  Prebend.  Salisbury,  1688,  d.  1726;  Arminian  and 
at  last  Arian.  Protestant  Reconciler,  1683  (retracted).  On  Dodwell,  1707. 
On  the  Five  Points,  1 V 1 0.  De  Imput.  Peccati  Ad  ami,  1711  ;  transl.  by  Hey- 
wood ,  1739.  Ethices  Comp.,  1713.  Disquis.  Modestse  (on  Bull,  replied  to 
by  Waterland,  and  rejoinder  by  Whitby),  1720,  etc. — Arthur  Ashley  Sykes , 
b.  1684,  Prebend.  Salisbury  and  Winchester,  d.  1756.  Controversies  with 
Collins,  S.  Clarke,  Warburton,  Middleton.  Script.  Doctr.  of  Redemption, 
1756.  Resurrection.  On  Sacrifice.  Memoirs  by  Disney,  1785. —  William 
Whiston,  b.  1667,  Prof.  Math.  Cambr.,  expelled  for  Arianism,  1710,  d. 
1752.  Boyle  Lect.  on  Prophecy,  1708.  Prim.  Christianity  revived,  5  vols., 
1711-12.  Text  of  Old  Test.,  1722.  Hist.  O.  and  N.  Test.,  6  vols.,  1745. 
Prim.  New  Test.,  1745.  Liturgy  of  Church  of  England  reduced,  1750. 
Memoirs,  3  vols.,  1749-50,  etc.] 

III.  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 

§  226. 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  TRENT,  AND  THE  CATECHISMUS  ROMANUS. 

f  Sarpi  [P.  Soave  Pol.],  Istoria  del  Concilio  di  Trento,  London,  1619.  [Bp.  Burnet  says 
of  Sarpi,  “  that  it  was  generally  looked  upon  as  the  rarest  piece  of  history  the  world 
ever  saw.”  It  was  translated  into  English  by  Sir  N.  Brent,  together  with  his  His¬ 
tory  of  the  Inquisition  (a  previous  transl.,  1655),  Lond.,  1696;  his  treatise  of  Bene¬ 
ficiary  Matters,  Westm.,  1127  ;  his  Life,  1651.  The  Lond.  ed.  of  1619  was  edited 
by  De  Dominis.  French  transl.  by  Courayer,  2  Tom.,  Amst.,  1736.]  f Pallavicini, 
Istoria  del  Cone,  di  Trento.  Rom.,  1636,  ii.  fol.,  Milan,  1717 ;  Latin  by  Guttini,  Ant., 
1673  ;  in  French,  3  vols.,  1844  ;  translated  into  German  by  f Klitsche,  Augsburg,  1835. 
Chemnitii  Examen  Concilii  Tridentini,  Francof.,  1707.  Salig,  vollstandige  Historie 
des  Tridentinischen  Conciliums,  Halle,  1741,  fol.  iii.  4.  f  G'oschl,  Dr.  J.  M.,  ges- 
chichtliche  Darstellung  des  grossen  allgemeinen  Concils  zu  Trient.  ii.,  Regensb.,  1840. 
JDanz,  Gesch.  des  Trident.  Concils  nach  der  Darstellung  eines  Katholischen  Schrifts- 
tellers,  Jena,  1846.  Marheineke ,  System  des  Katholicismus  (see  vol.  i.,  §  16).  J.  P. 
Lange ,  Die  gesetzh'ch-katholische  Kirche,  als  Sinnbild  der  freien  evang-kathol.  Kirche, 
Heidelberg,  1850.  [ Von  Wessenberg ,  Die  grossen  Kirchen-versammlungen,  4  Bde., 

Constanz.,  1840  (Bde.,  3  and  4),  comp.  Hefele’s  Beurtheilung,  1842.  Kollner's  Sym- 
bolik,  i.,  Ilamb.,  1844,  on  Sarpi,  p.  48,  on  Pallavicino,  p.  55.  Comp.  Ranke’s  Hist, 
of  Popes,  Phil,  ed.,  on  Sarpi,  p.  437  ;  on  Pallavicino,  437 ;  on  Trent,  71-74,  108-114, 
et  passim.  See  the  Literature  in  Gieseler's  Church  Hist.  (N.  Y.  edition),  vol.  v.  §  55. 
G.  J.  Planck,  Anecdota  ad  Hist.  Cone.  Trid.  pertinentia,  26  Gottingen  Programmes, 
1791-1818.  J.  Mendham ,  Memoirs  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  Lond.,  1834;  and  Acta 
Cone.  Trident,  a  Paleotto,  ed.  Mendham,  Lond.,  1842,  and  Suppl.,  1840.  J.  N.  Bris- 
char,  Beurtheilung  Sarpi’s  u.  Pallavic.,  Tub.,  1843,  2  Bde.  Ellies  du  Pin,  Hist,  du 
Concile  de  Trente,  2,  4to.  Bruxelles,  1721.  Bungener ,  Hist.  Council  Trent,  from  the 
French,  Lond.,  1842,  N.  Y.,  1855.  T.  A.  Buckley ,  Hist,  of  Council  of  Trent,  Lond., 
1832.  Bucholz's  Ferdinand  I.,  1850.  Bosseeuw  St.  Hilaire's  Histoire  d’Espagne, 
Tom.  viii.,  1861,  contains  new  and  learned  investigations  on  the  Council,  in  him, 
as  in  Ranke,  there  are  new  materials.  Among  the  older  works,  Heidegger's  Vindica¬ 
tion  of  Fra  Paolo,  in  his  Tumulus  Concil.  Trident.,  2,  4to.,  Zurich,  1690,  still  deserves 
t">  be  consulted. — Bp.  Jewel ,  Apology  and  Letters  to  Scipio  on  Council  of  Trent,  in 
his  works,  and  separately  published,  1854.  On  Trent,  comp.  Christ.  Rev.,  Jan. 


196 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


1856;  Brownson’s  Quarterly,  Oct.,  1856.  \Jas.  Waterworth,  Essays  on  Hist,  of 
Council,  prefixed  to  his  transl.  of  its  Decrees  and  Canons,  Lond.,  1848.  f  Ohs.  Butler , 
Historical  and  Literary  Account  of  Formularies,  etc.,  Lond.,  1816,  reprinted  in  hia 
works,  vol.  iv.,  1811.] 

Confronted  by  Protestantism,  the  Eoman  Catholics  found  them¬ 
selves  compelled  to  examine  the  state  of  their  own  Church.  They 
had  to  perform  a  twofold  task — viz.,  first ,  to  secure  the  doctrines 
which  they  held  from  misrepresentation  and  false  inferences,  and, 
secondly ,  to  hold  fast,  with  renewed  vigor,  that  which  their  princi¬ 
ples  bound  them  to  maintain.  The  Council  of  Trent  (1545-1593) 
had  therefore  to  enlighten  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  on  its  own 
position,  and  solemnly  to  sanction  its  system  (developed  to  a  great 
extent  by  the  scholastics  of  the  preceding  period)  in  direct  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  demands  of  the  reformers.  The  declarations  of  this 
Council,1  as  well  as  those  set  forth  in  the  Eoman  Catechism,  which 
was  based  upon  the  former,2  are  therefore  to  be  regarded  as  the  true 
symbols  of  the  Eomish  Church,  and  every  deviating  doctrine  must 
in  its  view  renounce  all  claims  to  catholicity. 

1  Canones  et  Decreta  Concilii  Tridentini  Rom.,  1564,  4.  In  the  same 

year  several  editions  were  published  at  Rome,  Venice,  Antwerp,  Louvain, 
Cologne,  and  many  others;  Lyons,  1580  (with  the  Index  Librorum  Pro- 
hibitorum).  In  later  times  editions  have  been  published  by  J.  Gallemart , 
Col.,  1618,  20,  Antw.,  1644,  Lyons,  1712  ;  by  Phil.  Chiffelet ,  Antw.,  1640, 
and  *Jodoc.  le  Plat.,  Antw.,  1779,  4  (Comp.  Walch,  Bibl.  Theol.,  Tom.  i.  p. 
407,  ss.),  reprinted  by  Danz  and  Streitwolf  (comp.  Vol.  i.  p.  31).  As  re¬ 
gards  the  history  of  doctrines  and  symbolism,  the  Sessions  4-7,  13,  14, 
21-25,  are  of  special  importance.  [  W.  Smets,  Sacros.  Cone.  Trid.  Canones 
et  Decreta,  ed.  4,  1854.  Canones  et  Decreta,  ex  Bullario  Roman.,  ed.  Richter , 
et  Schultze,  Lips.,  1853.  Canons  and  Decrees,  transl.  by  T.  A.  Buckley, 
Lond.,  1851  :  and  by  James  Waterworth ,  Lond.,  1848.  The  Doctrinal  De¬ 
crees  and  Canons,  transl.  by  W.  C.  Brownlee,  N.  Y.,  1845.] — The  Professio 
Fidei  Tridentince ,  based  upon  the  canons  of  the  council,  was  drawn  up  a.  d. 
1564,  by  order  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  and  no  one  could  obtain  either  an  ecclesias 
tical  office  or  an  academical  dignity,  etc.,  without  subscribing  it.  It  is  in 
the  Bullar.  Roman.  Tom.  ii.  p.  127,  ss.  (and  in  the  form  of  an  appendix  in 
the  earlier  edition  of  Winer.)  Comp.  G.  Ch.  F.  MohnicTce ,  Urkundliche 
Geschichte  der  sogenannten  Professio  fidei  Trident.,  etc.,  Greifswalde,  1822, 
8.  Winer,  p.  9.  [. Bungener's  Hist,  of  Council  of  Trent,  ubi  supra.  KolU 

ner ,  Symbolik,  ii.  161-165.] 

2  The  Catechismus  Romanus  was  composed  (in  accordance  with  a  resolu¬ 
tion  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  sess.  25),  by  Archbishop  Leon  Marino ,  Bishop 
Egidius  Foscarari,  and  Fr.  Fureiro ,  a  Portuguese  scholar,  under  the  super¬ 
intendence  of  three  cardinals,  and  published  a.  d.  1566,  by  authority  of 
Pope  Pius  IV.  (the  Latin  version  by  Paul  Manutius.)  Several  editions  and 
translations  into  the  modern  languages  have  been  published ;  e.  g.,  that  of 
Mayence,  1835, 12mo.  for  general  use.  In  the  earlier  editions  nothing  but  the 


§  227.  Theologians  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church.  197 


text  was  given,  without  any  division;  in  the  edition  of  Cologne,  1572,  it 
was  for  the  first  time  divided  into  hooks  and  chapters ;  that  of  Antwerp, 
1574  contained  questions  and  answers.  The  Catechism  consists  of  four 
parts:  de  Symbolo  Apostolico,  de  Sacramentis,  de  Decal ogo,  and  de  Ora- 
tione  Dominica.  Concerning  the  relation  in  which  the  catechism  stands  to 
the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  the  inferior  importance  assigned  to 
it  by  the  Jesuits  and  other  Roman  Catholic  theologians,  see  Winer,  1.  c. 
[The  Catechism  for  the  Curates,  composed  by  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 
Faithfully  translated,  permissu  superiorum,  Lond.,  1687.  A  translation  by 
T.  A.  Buckley,  Lond.,  1852.  Comp.  Kollner ,  Symbolik,  ii.  166-190.] 

The  catechisms  composed  by  the  Jesuit  P.  Canisius  (the  larger  of  which  appeared,  1554, 
the  smaller,  1566),  which  acquired  greater  currency  than  the  Catechismus  Romanus,  have 
not  received  the  papal  sanction,  and  on  that  account  cannot  be  regarded  as  symbolical 
books ;  but  they  excited  more  attention,  and  gave  rise  to  new  controversies.  Comp. 
Joh.  Wig  and,  Warming  vor  dem  Catechismus  des  Dr.  Canisii,  des  grossen  Jesuwidders,(!) 
Jena,  1570,  4.  The  Confutatio  (comp.  §  215,  note  2,)  might  also  be  regarded  as  a  docu¬ 
ment  which  sets  forth  the  principles  of  Romanism,  in  opposition  to  Protestantism ;  but  it 
was  not  formally  sanctioned  by  the  Church. 

[Among  the  secondary  sources  are  the  Roman  Missal ,  and  the  Breviary.  See  Kollner , 
ii.  190,  sq.  The  Council  of  Trent  ordered  the  revision  of  the  Missal,  published  in  1570; 
again  in  1604,  which  is  followed  in  all  the  reprints.  On  the  Breviarium,  see  Kocher 
Bibl.  Symbol,  i.  755,  sq. ;  it  is  so  called,  because  in  it  the  previous  offices  were  abbreviated 
(under  Gregory  VII).  The  Council  of  Trent  ordered  a  revision ;  printed  1568,  and  often. 
English  translation  of  Missal,  Lond.  Robertson ,  Rom.  Liturgy,  Edb.,  1792.  Geo.  Lewis, 
The  Bible,  Missal  and  Breviary,  2  vols.,  Edinb.,  1853,  contains  the  first  complete  English 
transl.  of  the  Liturgy.  Besides  the  Catechism  of  Canisius,  that  of  Bellarmine,  prepared 
by  direction  of  Clement  VIII.,  1603,  and  of  Bossuet ,  for  the  diocese  of  Meaux,  1687,  have 
had  much  authority]. 


§  227. 

THE  THEOLOGIANS  OF  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 

[Kuhn,  Kathol.  Dogmatik,  2te.,  Aufl.  1  (1859)  s.  463-519.  Hugo  Laemmer ,  Die  vortriden- 
tinisch-katbolische,  Theologie.  Aus  den  Quellen,  Berl.,  1858.  Gieseler ,  v.,  §  63.] 

Among  the  theologians  who  defended  the  doctrines  of  the  Eoman 
Catholic  Church,  during  the  age  of  the  Eeformation,1  along  with 
Eck ,  Faber ,  Cochlceus ,  and  others,  Desiderius  Erasmus  occupied 
the  most  prominent  place,  though  he  did  not  transmit  to  posterity 
a  system  of  dogmatic  theology.*  To  this  period  also  belongs  Albert 
Pighius ,3  whom  Calvin  opposed.  After  the  Council  of  Trent,  the 
members  of  the  Order  of  Jesus,  in  particular,4  made  the  defence  of 
modern  Eomanism  (both  theoretically  and  practically)  the  task  of 
their  lives.  The  most  conspicuous  doctrinal  and  polemical  writer 
among  them  was  Robert  Bellarmine?  while  Dionysius  Petavius,  en¬ 
deavored  to  prove  historically  the  antiquity  of  the  catholic  faith* 
The  following  writers  on  dogmatic  theology  (and  ethics),  belonged 
to  that  religious  society  ;  Peter  Canisius ,7  Alphonse  S aimer  on, 


198 


Fourth  Pek.od.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


John  Maldonat *  Francis  Suarez ,10  Gabriel  Vasquez ?n  Francis  Cos¬ 
ter,12  Martin  Becanus ,13  and  others.  Among  the  opponents  of  the 
Jesuits  and  their  scholastic  method,  Melchor  Canus,  a  Dominican 
monk  was  the  most  distinguished.14  Jacques  Benigne  Bossuet,  the 
acute  and  clever  Bishop  of  Meaux,  by  idealising  Catholicism  as 
much  as  was  possible,  endeavored  to  render  it  more  agreeable  to 
Protestants,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  he  showed  the  changes  which 
Protestant  doctrines  had  undergone  within  a  short  space  of  time.15 

1  On  Thomas  Cajetan  (who  wrote  a  commentary  on  Thomas  Aquinas), 
Eck,  Faber ,  Cochlceus,  Wimpina ,  Ambrose  Catharinus ,  and  others ;  see  the 
works  on  the  history  of  the  Reformation,  and  Bougine ,  Literaturgeschichte, 
ii.  p.  70,  ss.,  and  Laemmer ,  1.  c.  [On  Cajetan ,  see  Gieseler ,  v.,  §  63.  Opera 
Ommia,  5,  fob,  Lugd.,  1639.  His  translation  of  the  Bible  was  literal.  For 
his  liberal  views  he  was  assailed  by  the  Dominican  Catharinus.  C.  F.  Jager , 
Cajetan’s  Kampf  gegen  die  lutherische  Lehrreform,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  hist. 
Theol.,  1858.]  Concerning  George  Wicel ,  who  returned  to  the  Romish 
Church  (he  was  born  a.  d.  1501,  and  died  1573,  he  wrote:  Via  Regia, 
Helmst.,  1650,  De  sacris  nostri  Temporis  Controversiis,  ibid.,  1659),  comp. 
*Neander,  de  Georgio  Vicelio.,  Berol.,  1839,  4,  and  by  the  same :  das  Eine 
und  Mannigfache  des  christlichen  Lebens,  Berlin,  1840,  p.  167,  ss.  [ Gieseler , 
iv.,  §  51,  note  6.] 

2  Erasmus  died  at  Basle,  a.  d.  1536.  The  most  important  of  his  contro¬ 
versial  writings,  in  which  he  opposed  Luther’s  notions  concerning  the  will 
of  man,  are  mentioned  in  the  special  history  of  doctrines.  Comp.  *  Ad. 
Muller ,  Leben  des  Erasmus  von  Rotterdam,  Hamb.,  1828,  8.  [Jortin's  Life 
of  E.,  2,  4to.,  1758-60;  Knight1  s  Life,  Cambr.,  1760;  Hess,  2,  Zurich, 
1770;  Chs.  Butler,  Lond.,  1825.  Der  theol.  Standpunkt  des  Erasm.,  by 
Kerker ,  in  Theol.  Quartalschrift,  1859,  s.  531-567.  Articles  on  Erasmus  in 
Eclectic  (Lond.),  Sept.,  1854  ;  Christ.  Examiner  (by  C.  T.  Brooks ),  vol. 
49 ;  Southern  Rev.,  vol.  3 ;  Christ.  Rev.  (by  W.  C.  Wilkinson),  April, 
1858.  See  alco  Nisard ,  Etudes  sur  la  Renaissance,  1855.] 

8  The  family  name  of  Pighius  was  Von  Campen ;  he  died  as  provost  of 
the  church  of  St.  John  at  Utrecht,  Dec.,  1542.  Works:  De  Hierarchia 
Ecclesiast.,  and  De  libero  Hominis  Arbitrio,  et  div.  Gratia,  libri  x.,  Cola., 
1542.  See  Bayle ,  Diction.,  and  Schweizeds  Centraldogmen,  i.  180.  [Cal¬ 
vin’s  defence  against  this  work  of  Pighius  is  entitled  Defensio  sanse  et 
orthodoxse  Doctrinse  de  Servitute  et  Liberatione  humani  Arbitrii  advers. 
Calumnias  Alb.  Pighii  Campensis,  Genev.,  1545  ;  it  is  published  in  his 
Tractatus.] 

4  On  the  foundation  of  this  order  by  Ignatius  Loyola,  (1534-40),  see  the 
works  on  ecclesiastical  history.  Respecting  the  doctrinal  views  of  the 
Jesuits  (Mariolatry)  see  Baumgarten  Crusius,  Compendium  der  Dogmen- 
gesch.  i.  pp.  394,  395.  [Ranke,  Hist.  Popes  (Phil.)  56-71,  77-81,  et  passim. 
App.  520.  The  literature  in  Gieseler,  v.,  §  54.  Abbe  Guettee,  Hist,  des 
Jesuites,  Paris,  2  vols.,  1859.] 

6  “  As  regards  controversies,  he  was  the  best  writer  of  his  age.” — Bayle. 


§  227.  Theologians  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  199 


Bellarmine  was  born  a.  d.  1542,  at  Monte-Pulciano,  in  Tuscany,  entered  the 
order  of  the  Jesuits,  1560,  was  appointed  cardinal,  1599,  archbishop  Capua, 
1602,  and  died  1621.  He  wrote:  Disputationes  de  Controversiis  Fidei  adv. 
hujus  Temporis  Hgereticos,  Ingolst.,  1581,  82,  ii.  f.  P.  iii.  1592,  fob,  Venet., 
1596,  iii.  fob  This  work  was  opposed  not  only  by  Protestants,  but  also  by 
some  Roman  Catholics.  See  Schrockh,  Kirchengesch.  nach  der  Reforma¬ 
tion,  iv.  p.  260,  ss.  The  best  Protestant  work  written  against  Bellarmine 
was  that  of  Scherzer ,  J.  A.  (he  died  1683),  Antibellarminus,  Lips.,  1681,  4. 
[In  1607  Bellarmine  published  a  volume  of  corrections  of  the  previous  edi¬ 
tions  of  his  work,  under  the  title  Recognitio  Librorum,  incorporated  in  the 
editions  of  1615, 1620,  Paris,  1635  ;  Prague,  1721  ;  reprinted,  Rome,  4,  4to., 
1832-40,  with  an  Appendix,  Monument.  Eccles.  The  best  edition  is  that  of 
1620;  that  of  Venice,  1721-27,  omits  several  of  B.’s  works.  His  Notes 
of  the  Church,  refuted  by  Anglican  writers,  several  editions ;  comp.  Kuhn, 
ubi  supra,  490.] 

6  Petavius ,  was  born  at  Orleans,  a.  d.  1583,  and  died  at  Paris,  1652.  He 
wrote  Opus  de  Theologicis  Dogmatibus.  Par.,  1644-50,  iv.,  Antw.,  1700,  vi.; 
Heinrich ,  p.  377,  ss.  His  method  was  adopted  by  Ludw.  Thomassin ,  in  his 
Dogmata  Theologica,  1680-84.  See  Heinrich ,  p.  582.  [Petavius  was  Prof, 
of  theology  at  Paris  from  1621.  Muratori  represents  him  as  the  reviver  of 
dogmatic  theology.  The  Antwerp  (really  Amsterdam)  edition  of  1700,  in 
6  Tom.,  was  edited  by  Johannes  Clericus ,  under  the  pseudonym  of  Theo- 
philus  Alettinus,  who  in  his  preface  defends  him  against  Sandius  and 
Bullus ,  in  respect  to  the  Trinity,  etc.  The  edition  of  Zacliaria ,  Venice, 
1757,  is  the  best.  A  new  edition  is  in  progress  at  Rome,  vol.  i.,  1858,  ed. 
by  Passaglia  and  Schrader.  He  also  wrote  De  Doctrina  Temporum,  3  fob, 
Antw.,  1705.  Gibbon  says  of  Petav.  (Decline  and  Fall,  chap,  xlvii.  note  1  : 
“  His  Dogm.  Theolog.  is  a  work  of  incredible  labor  and  compass,  the  vol¬ 
umes  which  relate  solely  to  the  Incarnation  (2,  fob)  are  divided  into  xvi. 
books. . .  .The  Jesuit’s  learning  is  copious  and  correct;  his  Latinity  is  pure, 
his  method  clear,  his  argument  profound  and  well  connected  ;  but  he  is  the 
slave  of  the  fathers,  the  scourge  of  heretics,  and  the  enemy  of  truth  and 
candor  as  often  as  they  are  inimical  to  the  Catholic  cause.”  Comp,  also 
Kuhn ,  Dogmatik,  i.  505,  sq .,  who  represents  him  as  introducing  a  new 
method,  neither  scholastic  nor  speculative,  but  positive,  in  the  treatment  of 
theology.  He  was  followed  by  Thomasson ,  the  Oratorian,  3  Tom.,  Paris, 
1680-4;  Feuardentius ,  Tractatus  Theol.,  Paris,  1692-4  ;  Du  Hamel ,  Theo- 
logia  Speculatrix,  Paris,  1691 ;  Natalis  Alexander  (the  church  historian), 
Theolog.  Dogmat.,  Paris,  1693. — Most  of  the  R.  C.  divines,  till  the  middle 
of  the  18th  century,  adhered  to  the  scholastic  (Thomist)  method;  a  few 
followed  Scotus.  The  Scotists  were  Frassen ,  Scotus  Academicus,  Paris, 
1672  ;  and  LHerminier ,  Summa  Theol,  Seholast.,  Paris,  1771.  Gonet , 
Clypeus  Theol.  Thomist.; Burdigal,  1659,  was  a  Thomist;  as  were  also  Con- 
tenson ,  Theologia  Mentis  et  Cordis,  Colon,,  1722  ;  Witasse,  Tract.  Theol., 
Paris,  1722;  Boucat ,  Theol.  Patrum.,  Paris,  1718  ;  JBilluart ,  Cursus  theol, 
juxta  Mentem  S.  Thom.,  1745,  Others,  somewhat  later, —  Tournely , 
Prselect.  Theol.  Venet,,  1739;  Gotti ,  Theol,  Seholast,  dogm,,  Venet.,  1750  ; 


200 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Berti ,  De  Theol.  Discipl.,  Venet.,  1776  ;  Habert ,  Theol.  Dogrn.  et  Moral., 
Vindel.,  1751.  Kuhn,  .ubi  supra.] 

7  The  original  name  of  Canisius  was  de  Hondt ;  he  was  born  a.  d.  1511, 
and  died  1597.  He  was  the  author  of  a  Summa  Doctrinse  Christianae  (In- 
stitutiones  Christianae.)  Par.,  1628,  f.,  and  of  the  two  catechisms  men¬ 
tioned  §  226. 

8  Salmeron  was  born  at  Toledo,  and  died  a.  d.  1585.  His  works  were 
published  at  Madrid,  1597-1602.  Cologne,  1612,  xvi.  fol. 

9  Maldonatus  was  born  a.  d.  1534,  taught  in  the  universities  of  Sala¬ 
manca  and  Paris,  and  died  1583.  His  works  appeared  at  Paris,  1643,  77, 
iii.  fol.  Heinrich ,  p.  302,  ss.  SchrdcJch ,  iv.  p.  83.  [He  opposed  the  Jesuit 
view  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  Mary  as  necessary  to  the  faith.  He 
was  called  to  Rome  by  Gregory  XIII.  to  superintend  the  publication  of  the 
Septuagint.] 

10  Suarez  died  a.  d.  1617,  at  Lisbon.  He  wrote  :  Commentatio  in  Thomse 
Summam.,  Mogunt.,  1619-29,  xix.  fol. 

11  Vasquez  died  a.  d.  1604,  at  Alcala.  He  wrote:  Commentarii  in 
Thomam.  Ingolstad.,  1606.  Yen.,  1608.  Antw.,  1621. 

12  Coster  was  professor  of  theology  and  philosophy  in  the  university  of 
Cologne,  provincial  of  his  order  in  the  Rhine  provinces,  and  died  a.  d.  1619. 
He  wrote  :  Enchridion  prsecipuarum  Controvers.  in  Religione;  Meditationes. 
— SchrdcJch ,  iv.  p.  280. 

13  Becan  was  successively  professor  in  the  universities  of  Wurzburg,  May- 
ence,  and  Vienna,  and  died  1624,  as  confessor  to  the  Emperor  Ferdinand  II.; 
he  had  before  taught  in  Wtirzburg,  Mayence  and  Vienna. — He  wrote  : 
Summa  Theol. — Manuale  Controversiarum  hums  Temporis. — Opp.  Mogunt., 
1639,  1640,  ii.  f. 

14  Canus  was  a  native  of  Taracon,  [born  1523],  and  died  a.  d.  1560,  as 
the  provincial  of  his  order  in  Castile.  He  wrote :  Locorum  Theol.  libr.  xii. 
Salam.,  1563,  f.  Padua,  1714,  4,  Venet.,  1759,  4,  and  Vienna,  1764,  (edited 
by  Hyacinth  Serry.)  Comp.  Heinrich ,  p.  298,  ss.  SchrdcJch ,  iv.  p.  66,  ss. 
[See  Kuhn ,  ubi.  supra,  p.  486,  and  Laemmer. ] 

15  Bossuet  was  born  at  Dijon,  a.  d.  1627,  was  appointed  bishop  of  Meaux, 
1681,  and  died  1704.  Among  his  works  were:  Exposition  de  la  Doctrine 
de  l’eglise  Catholique,  1671,  edited  by  Fleur y,  Antw.,  1678,  12. — Histoire 
des  Variations  des  eglises  Protestantes,  Par.  (and  Ainst.),  1688,  ii.  8.  He 
was  opposed  by  :  Basnage  (Hist,  de  la  Rel.  des  eglises  Reformees,  Rot., 
1721),  and  Pfaff  (Disputatt.  Anti-Bossuet  Tub.,  1720,)  to  which  Bossuet  re¬ 
plied,  Defense,  etc.,  Paris,  1701.  Several  Roman  Catholics  also  pronounced 
against  Bossuet’s  interpretation  of  their  doctrines,  e.  g.  Maimbourg ,  the 
Jesuit.  See  SchrdcJch ,  vii.  p.  280,  ss.  Comp.  C.  ScJimidt ,  in  Herzog’s 
Realencycl.  ii.  317,  sq.  [(Euvres,  20,  4to.,  Paris,  1743-1753.  Depres ’  edi¬ 
tion,  27  vols.,  not  complete.  Versailles  ed.  by  Bausset ,  46  vols.  QEuvres 
completes  de  B.,  59  vols.,  Paris,  1825  ;  12  vols.,  1836.  An  English  trans¬ 
lation  of  his  Exposition,  by  W\altef\  M\ontague\  Paris,  1672;  another 
London.  Hist,  of  Variations,  transl.,  2  vols.,  Dubl.,  1836,  1845.  On  the 
Exposition,  see  Nouv.  de  la  Republ.  de  Lettres,  x.  931,  1252.  Histoire  de 
Bossuet  par  M.  le  Cardinal  de  Bausset ,  nouv.  ed.  Paris,  8,  1855.  Memoires  et 


§  228.  Jansenism. 


201 


Journ.  sur  a  Vie  et  les  Ouvrages  de  Bossuet  (from  manuscripts),  par  l’Abbe 
Guettee ,  2,  Paris,  1856,  who  also  publ.  in  1854,  Essai  sur  l’Ouvrage  de  B. 
“  Avertissement  sur  les  Reflex,  morales”  (of  Quesnel),  vindicating  it  as 
Bossuet’s  work,  and  showing  that  B.  opposed  the  Jesuits.  A.  Floquet , 
Etudes  sur  Bossuet,  vol.  i.  1855.  See  also  JBouillier ,  Hist,  de  la  Philos. 
Cartesienne,  Tom.  ii.  A.  Caillot ,  Yie  de  Bossuet,  Paris,  1836.] 


§  228. 

JANSENISM. 

*Reuchlin,  Geschichte  von  Port-Royal,  der  Kampf  des  reformirten  und  jesuitischen  Eathol- 
icismus  unter  Ludwig  XIII.  XIV.,  2  vols.,  Hamb.,  1839-1844.  See  also  the  article 
in  Herzog.  [ Sainte-Beuve ,  Hist,  de  Port-Royal,  4  vols.,  Paris,  1840-1858.  Oh. 
Beard ,  Port-Roval,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1860.  Schimmelpenninck,  Memoirs  of  Port-Royal, 
Loud.,  1855.  On  Reuchlin's  work,  see  Sir  Jas.  Stephen,  Essays,  vol.  i.  C.  A.  Wil- 
kens,  Port-Royal,  Oder  der  Jansenismus  in  Frankreich,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  Wissen- 
schaftliche  Theologie,  1859.  Meth.  Quarterly,  N.  Y.,  1855.  Older  Histories  of  Port 
Royal,  by  Fontaine ,  2  vols.,  1798;  Racius ,  2  vols.,  1764;  Quesnel ,  La  Paix  de 
Charles  IX.,  2  vols.,  1701. —  Works  on  the  Jansenists  ;  Leydecker ,  Hist.  Jans.  Traj.  ad 
Rhenum,  1695.  ( Gerheron ),  Hist.  Generate  de  Jans.,  Rom.,  3  vols.,  1711.  Bom.  de 

Colonia,  Diction,  de  Livres  Jansen.,  4  vols.,  Lyons,  1752.  Histories  by  Tregelles ,  1851; 
Bellegrade, ,  1851  (see  Christ.  Rembr.,  Jan.,  1852) ;  and  particularly  J.  if.  Neale,  Hist, 
of  the  so-called  Jansenist  Church  in  Holland,  Lond.,  1857  ;  comp.  Dublin  Rev.,  1858. 
— The  True  Idea  of  Jansenism,  both  Historick  and  Dogmatick,  by  T[heophilus\ 
G[aZe],  Lond.,  1699. — Articles  in  Irish  Eccies.  Journal,  1852;  Bibl.  Repos.,  1847; 
Church  Rev.,  Jan.,  1858 ;  Dublin  Rev.,  1854  (tracing  the  French  revolution  to  Jan¬ 
senism  ;  and  the  same  view  in  Brownson’s  Quarterly) ;  Princeton  Rev.,  Jan.,  1856  ; 
Christ.  Rev.,  April,  1856  ;  Am.  Theol.  Rev.  ( L .  Whiting ),  1860 ;  Kitto’s  Journal  of 
Sacred  Lit.,  vol.  vii. — Specimen  Hist.  Theol.  exhibens  Historiam  Eccl.  Ultraject. 
Rom.  Cath.,  male  Jansenisticse  diet®,  scripsit  J.  A.  Gerth  van  Wijk ,  Traj.  ad  Rhen., 
1859.] 

In  opposition  to  the  Jesuitic  and  Pelagian  dogmatic  theology 
and  ethics,  Jansenism  took  its  rise,  following  some  earlier  prece¬ 
dents,1  and  spread  from  the  Netherlands  into  France,  gaining  a 
powerful  centre  and  support  in  the  Congregation  of  Port-Royal.2 
On  the  one  hand  (in  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  election,  etc.)  the 
Jansenists  manifested  a  leaning  towards  Protestantism,  and  thus 
maintained  the  Protestant  principle  about  faith  within  the  bosom 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ;  on  the  other  (as  regards  the  sacra¬ 
ments  and  the  doctrine  about  the  Church),  they  retained  the  views 
of  the  latter.  In  both  respects  their  views  were  in  accordance  with 
the  earlier  Augustinianism,  which  they  were  desirous  of  restoring 
in  all  its  purity.3  The  theologians  of  Port-Royalj  such  as  Antoine 
Arnauld ,4  Peter  Nicole ,5  and  others,  exerted  greater  influence  upon 
the  belief  of  their  contemporaries,  by  their  practical  and  ascetic 
writings,  or  scientific  works  of  a  more  general  character,  than  by 
strictly  dogmatic  works.  The  profound  Pascal ,  in  particular,  ad- 


202 


Fourth  Period  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


vanced  the  good  cause,  both  by  his  opposition  to  the  casuistry  of 
the  Jesuits,  and  by  his  ingenious  defence  of  Christianit}r.8  Pascha - 
sius  Quesnel,  a  priest  of  the  Oratory,  propagated  Jansenistic  princi¬ 
ples,  together  with  the  New  Testament,  among  the  people,  and  thus 
exposed  the  Jansenists  to  new  persecutions,  and  called  lorth  new 
controversies.7 

1  On  the  earlier  manifestation  of  the  Augnstinian  tendency  in  the  Catho¬ 
lic  Church,  see  RcinJce,  History  of  the  Popes  (Philad.)  p.  73,  and  the  special 
history  of  doctrines. — Concerning  the  doctrines  of  M,  Bajus  at  Louvain, 
and  the  controversy  to  which  they  gave  rise,  respecting  Lewis  Molina  and 
others,  see  ibidem.  [See  Niedner ,  Kirchengesch.,  649,  706-'/  10.  Mich. 
Baji  Opera,  Colon.,  1696.  Du  Chesne ,  Hist,  du  Bajanisme,  Douay,  1791. 
Molina,  Liberi  Arbitrii  cum  Gratise  Donis. . .  .Concordia,  Lisb.,  1588,  Antw., 
1595. — Pius  V.  condemned  in  a  mild  form,  79  theses  from  Baius,  in 
1567,  in  the  Bull  Ex  omnibus  Afflictionibus.  See  Gieseler,  s.  §  59.] 

2  Cornelius  Jansen  was  born  a.  d.  1585,  and  died  1638,  as  bishop  of 
Ypern.  His  principal  work  was  edited  after  his  death  :  Augustinus  seu 
Doctrina  S.  Augustini  de  humanse  Naturae  Sanitate,  HEgritudine,  Medicina 
ad  versus  Pelagianos  et  Massilienses,  Low,  1640,  iii.  f.  Concerning  the  ex¬ 
ternal  history  of  Jansenism  (the  bull  In  Eminenti  issued  by  Pope  Urban 
VIII.,  a.  d.  1642),  as  well  as  of  Jean  du  Vergier ,  abbot  of  St.  Cyran,  and  Port- 
Royal  des  Champs,  compare  the  works  of  Reuchlin,  Neale,  etc.,  and  the 
works  on  ecclesiastical  history  in  general ;  as  regards  the  scientific  import¬ 
ance  of  the  Society  of  Port-Royal,  in  its  bearing  upon  France,  see  the  works 
on  the  history  of  literature,  especially :  Sainte  Beuve,  Port-Royal,  4  vols., 
Paris,  1840-58.  [Histoire  des  cinq  Propositione  de  Jansen,  Liege,  1699, 
2  vols.,  (by  Dumas .)] 

3  Comp.  Vol.  i.,  §  84,  114.  Jansenism  may  be  called  Protestantism 
within  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  so  far  as  Jesuitism,  which  is  its  anti¬ 
thesis,  represents  modern  Catholicism.  But  we  ought  to  bear  in  mind,  that 
this  can  be  said  only  in  reference  to  the  doctrines  of  grace  and  of  good  works. 
As  regards  the  sacraments  (and  especially  the  Lord’s  Supper),  the  Jansenists 
have  strictly  retained  the  views  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  are 
quite  as  decidedly  opposed  to  the  Protestant  doctrines  as  the  Council  of 
Trent,  or  the  Jesuits. 

4  Arnauld  was  born  a.  d.  1612,  and  died  1694.  His  complete  works 
appeared  after  his  death,  Lausanne,  1680,  4.  Comp.  Reuchlin,  p.  132,  ss. 
Kirchenhistorisches  Archiv.,  1824,  p.  101,  ss.  [The  chief  works  of  Arnauld, 
De  la  frequente  Communion,  1643  ;  La  Theologie  Morale  des  Jesuites,  1643  ; 
Apologie  de  Jansen,  1644  ;  (Euvres,  48,  4to.  He  wrote  against  the  Protes¬ 
tants  (Jurien  and  Aubertin),  the  Jesuits  (Maimbourg,  Annat),  and  the  phil¬ 
osophers  (Descartes  and  Malebranche).  Causa  Arnaldina,  2  vols.,  Leod. 
Eb.,  1699.  Vavin,  La  Verite  sur  Arnauld,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1847.] 

5  Nicole,  was  born  a.  d.  1625,  and  died  1695.  He  opposed  the  Jesuits  as 
as  well  as  the  Protestants.  Kirchen.  Archiv.  1.  c.  p.  121,  ss.  [Nicole  and 
Jansenists,  1  rinceton  Rev.,  Jan.,  1856.  His  essays  have  a  high  reputation  j 
25  vols.,  Paris,  1733,  s^.] 


§  229.  Mysticism  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  203 


6  Pascal  was  born  a.  d.  1623,  at  Clermont  in  Auvergne,  and  died  1662. 
He  wrote :  Les  Provinciales  (Lettres  ecrites  par  Louis  Montalte  &  un  Pro¬ 
vincial  de  ses  amis.)  Col.,  1657. — Pensees  sur  la  Religion,  1669.  They  were 
translated  into  German  by  K.  A.  Blech ,  with  a  preface  by  Neander,  Berlin, 
1840.  CEuvres,  Paris,  1816.  Comp,  the  biography  composed  by  his  sister 
(Mad.  Perier),  and  prefixed  to  his  Pensees;  Theremin  (Adalberts  Bekenntnisse, 
Berlin,  1831),  p.  222,  ss.  J.  Rust ,  de  Blasio  Pascale,  Erlang.,  1833,  4,  and 
*Reuchlin ,  Pascals  Leben  und  der  Geist  seiner  Schriften,  Stuttg.,  1840.  [Pas¬ 
cals  Pensees,  first  published  by  Perier,  imperfect,  and  mutilated  ;  also  by  Con- 
dorcet,  1776  ;  Voltaire,  1778  ;  revised  by  Faugeres ,  after  the  original,  2  vols., 
1844,  and  Havet ,  1852,  and  Astie,  2  vols.,  Lausanne,  1857.  Des  Pensees  de 
Pascal,  par  V.  Cousin,  1843  (comp.  Rev.  de  deux  Mondes,  Nov.  15,  1853,  article 
by  Planch e,  reviewing  the  whole  controversy,  and  Villemain’s  Discours.,  1855). 
A.  Vinet,  Etudes  sur  Blaise  Pascal,  Paris,  1848.  Neander ,  geschichtliche 
Bedentung  d.  Pensees  in  his  wissenschaftliche  Abhandlungen.  Abbe  May - 
nard ,  Les  Provinciales  et  leur  Refutation,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1851 ;  comp.  Christ. 
Remembr.,  July,  1852,  a  vindication  of  Pascal. — An  English  transl.  of  the 
Provincial  Letters,  2d  ed.,  1658,  Lond. ;  also,  1816.  Thoughts,  newly  transl. 
ed.  by  Bickersteth,  1833.  McCrie’s  transl.  of  Letters,  Edinb.  Thoughts 
and  Letters,  etc.,  3  vols.,  Lond.,  1847-50  by  Geo .  Pearce ,  New  York,  2  vols., 
1858.  Thoughts,  transl.  by  0.  W.  Wight ,  and  Priv.  Letters;  2  vols.,  New 
York,  1861.  Articles  on  Pascal;  Kitto’s  Journal ,  vol.  3;  Eclectic  (Lond.), 
Nov.,  1852;  Princeton  Rev.,  Jan.,  1854  ;  Rogers,  in  his  Miscellanies;  North 
American  (Bowen)  vol.  60  ;  Neander  on  Pascal,  transl.  in  Kitto,  vol.  3  ;  on 
Recent  Editions  and  Transl.,  Meth.  Quarterly,  xii.] 

7  Quesnel  died  a.  d.  1719.  He  published  Le  Nouveau  Testament  en 
fran^ais  avec  de  reflexions  morales,  etc.,  Par.,  1687.  On  the  controversies 
respecting  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  see  the  works  on  ecclesiastical 
history.  [The  101  Propositions  of  Quesnel ,  condemned,  see  in  Church 
Review,  Jan.,  1858.  The  New  Test,  of  Quesnel,  with  Moral  Reflections, 
Lond.,  4  vols.,  1719-25  :  his  Four  Gospels,  2  vols.  Balt.,  1790  :  republ., 
edited  by  bp.  Wilson  in  3  vols.;  Philadelphia  ed.,  2  vols.,  1855.  Acta 
Publica  Constitution  is  Unigenitus,  ed.  Pfaff \  Tub.,  1721  ;  Collectio  Nova 
Actorum,  ed.  Dubois,  1725  ;  Anecdotes,  on  Mem.  secretes  de  la  Const.  Unig., 
3  vols.,  Utrecht,  1732.] 


§  229. 

THE  MYSTICISM  OF  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 

Bamberger ,  Stimmen  aus  dem  Heiligthum  d.  Christl.  Mystik  u.  Thesopliie.  Stuttg.  1857. 

[  Vaughan,  loc. 

Noth  withstanding  all  the  efforts  made  by  Roman  Catholics  to 
obtain  the  ascendency  in  science,  art,  and  politics  (an  attempt  in 
which  the  Jesuits  displayed  the  greatest  activity),  they  never  en¬ 
tirely  lost  that  spiritual  tendency  which  characterized  the  orthodox 


204 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


mystics  of  the  middle  ages.  The  most  distinguished  representatives 
of  this  tendency,  were  the  new  saints  Charles  Borromeoj1  Francis 
of  Sales ,2  and  others,  together  with  Cardinal  John  Bona.3  Never¬ 
theless,  mysticism  here  again  showed  a  tendency  to  pantheism,  as  is 
evident  in  the  case  of  the  German  mystic,  Angelus  Silesius .4 — The 
mystic  quietism  of  Michael  Molinos ,5  a  Spanish  secular  priest, 
formed  a  striking  contrast  to  the  intriguing  worldliness  of  the  J esuits, 
and  gave  rise  to  the  Quietist  controversy  in  France.6  None  hut  men 
of  as  pure  a  character  as  F melon  J  whose  life  was  one  of  constant 
communion  with  God,  could  hold  such  a  doctrine  in  its  ideal  aspect, 
without  exposing  themselves  to  the  danger  of  fanaticism,  the  bare 
possibility  of  which  affrighted  men  of  sober  intellect,  such  as  Bos - 
suet3 

1  Borromeo  was  born  a.  d.  1538,  at  Arona,  and  died  1584,  as  archbishop 
of  Milan.  He  was  canonised,  1610.  Compare:  *  Sailer,  der  heil.  Karl 
Borromeus,  Augsb.,  1823.  For  his  writings,  which  are  chiefly  ascetical,  see 
ibid.  p.  146,  and  225,  ss.  (where  extracts  from  his  homilies  are  given.) 
\Godeau,  La  Vie  de  Chs.  Borrom.,  Paris,  1747.  Giussano,  Leben  des  B. 
(from  Italian),  by  Klitsche,  3  vols.,  Augsb.,  1836.  Dieringer,  der  heil.  Bor¬ 
rom.  d.  Kirchen-  Verbess.  seiner  Zeit.  Koln.,  1846.] 

2  Francis  of  Sales  was  born  a.  d.  1567,  in  Savoy,  and  died  1622,  as 
bishop  (in  partibus)  of  Geneva.  He  was  canonised  1665. — A  new  edition 
of  his  works  appeared,  Paris,  1834,  in  sixteen  vols. — Introduction  a  la  vie 
devote.  A  memoir  of  his  life  was  published  by  Marsollier ,  Paris,  1747,  ii. 
8.  Comp.  Sailer,  Briefe  aus  alien  Jahrhunderten,  Yol.  iii.  p.  127,  ss. 
[. Baudry ,  Supplement  aux  QEuvres  de  Frang.  de  Sales,  Lyon,  1836.  Reusing 
Leben  d.  heil.  Fr.  v.  Sales,  Paderb.,  1818.  L.  Clarus,  Leben  von  Fr.  v. 
Sales,  ii.  Schaffh.,  1860.  An  Introduction  to  a  Devout  Life,  translated  by 
W.  Nicholls ,  Lond.,  1701.  Philotheca,  or  an  Introduction  to  a  Devout 
Life,  Dubl.,  1844.] 

3  Cardinal  Bona  was  born  a.  d.  1609,  at  Mondori,  in  Piedmont,  entered 
the  order  of  the  Benedictines,  was  made  cardinal,  1669,  and  died  1674. — 
He  wrote :  Via  Compendii  ad  Deum.  Col.,  1671,  12.— Manuductio  ad 
Coelum.  Par.,  1664,  12.  His  works  appeared  Par.  (Antw.),  1677,  and  Antw., 
1739,  fol.  [Bona’s  Guide  to  Eternity,  transl.  by  Sir  R.  F Estrange,  6th  ed., 
Lond.,  1712;  Moral  Essay  on  Friendship,  Lond.,  1702.] 

4  His  proper  name  was  Scheffler, *  he  was  born  a.  d.  1624,  at  Breslau, 
renounced  Protestantism  for  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  1653,  and  died 
1677,  in  the  monastery  of  the  Jesuits  at  Breslau.  He  wrote:  Heilige 
Seelenlust — Cherubinischer  Wandersmann,  etc.  Extracts  from  his  works  are 
given  by  Wackernagel,  Deutsches  Lesebuch,  ii.  col.  427,  ss .—  Varnhagen  von 
Ense,  Denkwtirdigkeiten  und  vermischte  Schriften,  1837,  i.  p.  307,  ss. 
*  Goschel,  in  the  Jahrbticher  fUr  wissenschaftliche  Kritik,  1834,  N°.  41,  ss. 

*  Schrader  objects  to  the  identity  of  Silesius  and  Scheffler ,  in  his  work,  Angelus  Sile* 
Bius  in  seiner  Mystik,  Halle,  1853,  4to.,  but  on  insufficient  grounds.  ' 


§  229.  Mysticism  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  205 


Wittmann ,  Angelus  Silesius,  als  Convertit,  Myst.  Dichter,  und  Polemiker, 
Augsb.,  1842.  Kahlert ,  Angelus  Silesius,  Bresl.,  1853.  [Comp.  Schuster , 
in  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  hist.  Theologie,  1857.  Westminst.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1853.] 

6  Molinos  died  a.  d.  1696,  after  several  years’  imprisonment  in  Rome. 
On  the  question  whether  he  stood  in  connection  with  the  Alombrados,  see 
Baumgarten-Crusius ,  Compend.  d.  Dogm.  Gesch.  i.  p.  407.  He  composed  a 
Guida  spirituale,  Rom.,  1675.  (It  was  translated  into  Latin  by  A.  H. 
Francke ,  Lips.,  1687,  12.  C.  E.  Scharling ,  Michael  de  Molinos  (from  the 
Danish)  [in  Niedner’s  Zeitschrift,  1854],  Gotha,  1855.  [Recueil  de  diverses 
Pieces  concernant  le  Quietisme ;  on  Molinos,  ses  sentiments,  etc.,  Amst., 
1688.  Molinos’  Spiritual  Guide,  transl.,  Lond.,  1688.  Lettres  ecrits  de 
Rome  touchant  l’affaire  de  Molin.  Amst.,  1696.  See  Notes  and  Queries, 
June,  1855,  p.  424,  in  Three  Letters  on  Italy,  1687,  by  Burnet  ?  Account  of 
English  Mystical  works,  Notes  and  Queries,  Dec.  20,  1856  ( Willis,  Try  on , 
Bromley ,  etc.)] — Other  Spanish  mystics  prior  to  his  time  were  :  Therese  a 
Jesu  (who  died  a.  d.  1582)  and  Johannes  a  Cruce  (who  died  a.  d.  1591,  and 
was  canonised  1726).  Lope  de  Vega ,  died  1635.  Comp.  Baumgarten- 
Crusius,  1.  c.  p.  410.  Hamberger ,  189. 

6  The  controversy  was  called  forth  by  Antoinette  Marie  Bouvieres  de  la 
Mothe-Guyon  (who  died  a.  d.  1717) ;  see  her  autobiography,  Col.,  1720,  iii. 
and  the  account  of  her  life  given  by  her  confessor,  Francois  la  Combe. 
Concerning  the  controversy  itself,  see  the  works  on  ecclesiastical  history, 
and  the  biography  of  Fenelon  mentioned  in  the  following  note.  [Der 
Quietismus  in  Frankreich,  Ruckgaber,  in  Theol.  Quartalschrift,  1856,  2,  4. 
Vaughan ,  Helfferich,  Noack ,  in  their  works  on  Mysticism.  Life  of  Madam 
Guyon,  by  Prof.  T.  C.  TJpham,  2  vols.,  1 824 ;  comp.  Brit.  Qu.  Rev.,  May, 

1853.  — The  complete  works  of  Madame  Guion  form  49  volumes.  The  Life 
of  Lady  Guion,  written  by  herself  in  French,  abridged,  Bristol,  1772.-— 
Life  by  T.  Bigby  Brookes ,  Lond.,  1806.  Poems  transl.  by  TV.  Cowper, 
1801.] 

7  Fenelon  was  born  A.  d.  1651,  and  died  1715,  as  bishop  of  Cambray. 

He  wrote  :  Explication  des  maximes  des  Saints  sur  la  vie  interieure,  Par., 
1697,  Amst.,  1698,  12.  (Euvres  Spirituelles,  Amst.,  1725,  v.  12.  They  were 
translated  into  German  by  Claudius,  Hamb.,  1823,  iii.  Avery  full  memoir  of 
his  life  (in  which  an  account  of  the  whole  controversy  is  given)  is  contained 
in  the  work  of  *Bausset,  Histoire  de  J.  B.  Bossuet,  4  Vols.,  Vers.,  1814,  and 
Herder ,  Adrastea  (Werke  zur  Philosophic,  Vol.  ix.  p.  43).  See  Lechler,  in 
Herzog’s  Realencyclop.,  and  comp.  §  228,  note  7.  [ Bonnel ,  De  la  Contro- 

verse  de  Bossuet  et  Fenelon,  Paris,  1850.  Fenelon,  (Euvres,  10  vols.,  Par., 
1851.  Transl.  of  Directions  for  Holy  Life,  1747  ;  Demonstration  of  Being  of 
of  God,  1715  ;  Pastoral  Letter  concerning  Love  of  God,  1715  ;  Part  of  his 
Spiritual  Works,  by  R.  Houghton,  2  vols.,  Dubl.,  1771  ;  De  Bausset’s  Life 
of  F.  transl.  by  W.  Mudford,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1810.  Fenelon’s  Life  by  Ch. 
Butler,  1810.  Selections  from  F.’s  Writings,  with  a  Memoir,  by  Mrs.  Fol- 
len,  Bost.,  1851.  Spiritual  Progress,  or  Instructions  in  the  Divine  Life, 
from  the  French  of  Fenelon  and  Madame  Guyon,  ed.  T.  TV.  Metcalf,  Bost., 

1854. ] 

•  See  his  Relation  sur  le  Quietisme,  1693. 


206 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


On  the  different  features  which  the  mysticism  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  presents 
(“  areopagitic,  ascetic,  speculative,  and  truly  religious  mysticism”),  see  Baumgarten-  Qrusius, 
L  p.  409. 


§  230. 

LIBERAL  TENDENCIES  IN  CRITICISM  AND  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 
TRANSITION  TO  THE  FOLLOWING  PERIOD. 

Though  a  system  of  liberal  criticism  in  general  was  restrained  by 
the  very  principle  of  Romanism,  yet  in.  respect  to  biblical  literature 
the  critical  spirit  was  able  to  develop  itself  more  freely  among  Roman 
Catholics  than  among  Protestants.  Thus  Richard  Simon  laid  the 
foundation  of  biblical  criticism,1  and  also  contributed,  by  his  doc¬ 
trinal  writings,  to  prepare  the  way  for  that  new  state  of  things  which 
was  to  grow  out  of  the  conflicts  of  the  most  heterogeneous  elements. 
About  the  same  time  John  Baptist  du  Hamel*  and  Natalis  Alex¬ 
ander ,3  were  distinguished  as  theologians  of  a  more  liberal  tendency, 
who  endeavoured  to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  scholasticism.  [Comp. 
§  228,  Note  6.] 

1  Simon  was  horn  a.  d.  1638,  and  died  1712.  His  work  is  entitled  : 
Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Test.  Rot.,  1685,  4,  du  N.  T.,  1689. 

2  Du  Hamel  was  born  a.  d.  1624,  officiated  as  priest  of  the  Oratory,  and 
died  1706.  He  wrote  :  Theol.  Speculativa  et  Practica,  Par.,  1691.  Hein¬ 
rich^  p.  382.  Schrockh ,  vii.  p.  208. 

Noel  Alexander  was  born  a.  d.  1639,  and  died  1*724  ;  he  belonged  to  the 
order  of  the  Dominicans,  and  was  a  learned  monk.  [He  was  condemned 
for  his  Gallicanism  by  Pope  Innocent  XI.,  1684.]  Besides  his  famous  Hist. 
Eccles.,  best  ed.  20,  4to.,  by  Romaglia  and  Mansi,  1785-90;  he  wrote: 
Theologia  Dogmatica  et  Moralis,  Par.,  1693,  X.  8,  1699,  1703.  Disserta- 
tiones  Historico-ecclesiasticse,  ii.  fol.  Heinrich ,  p.  384.  Schrockh ,  1.  c. 


IV.— THE  GREEK  CHURCH. 

§  231. 

While  the  very  foundations  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  were 
shaken  by  the  Reformation,  which,  nevertheless,  exerted,  in  some 
respects,  a  reviving  and  regenerating  influence  upon  it,  the  Greek 
Church  presented  the  mournful  aspect  of  a  ruin  in  the  midst  of  sur¬ 
rounding  Mohammedan  nations.  It  came  into  contact  with  Pro¬ 
testantism,  but  only  externally,  and  for  a  very  short  time.1  Cyril- 
lus  Lucaris ,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  lost  his  life  (a.d.  1638)  in 
consequence  of  betraying  a  leaning  toward  Calvinism.2  Soon  after 


§  231.  The  Greek  Church. 


207 


(a.d.  1642),  Petrus  Mogilas ,  metropolitan  of  Kiew,  together  with 
some  other  Greek  theologians,  drew  up  a  confession  of  faith  for  the 
Russians,  which  met  with  the  approbation  of  the  patriarchs  of  the 
East,  and  received  (1672)  the  sanction  of  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem. 
Though  Leo  Allatius  (1669),  endeavoured  to  prove  the  agreement 
between  the  doctrines  of  the  Greek  and  the  Roman  Churches,  the 
former  continued  t<j  maintain  its  independence.4 

1  a.  d.  1559  Melancthon  transmitted  a  Greek  translation  of  the  Confessio 
Augustana  to  the  patriarch  Joseph  II.,  but  without  results.  Nor  did  the 
negotiations  between  the  patriarch  Jeremias  II.  (1574)  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Jac.  Andrea,  and  the  theologians  of  Tubingen  on  the  other,  lead  to  any 
more  favorable  result.  The  correspondence  to  which  they  gave  rise  was 
broken  off  a.  d.,  1581;  see  Schnurrer ,  De  Actis  inter  Tub.  Theoll.  et  Patri- 
archas  Const.  (Oratt.  Acad.  ed.  Paulus,  Tub.,  1828.) 

3  (A evtcapig.)  ’  A.varoXuci)  ogoXoyia  rfjg  xpiGTiavucrjg  moreoig,  lat.  Genev., 
1629,  Greek,  1633,  Latin  and  Greek,  1645.  It  is  given  by  Aymon ,  Monu- 
mens  Authentiques  de  la  Rel.  des  Grecs,  etc.  a  la  Haye,  1708,  4  ;  and  by 
Kimmel ,  Libri  Symbol.  Eccl.  Orient,  p.  24,  sq.  See  his  Prolegomena,  p. 
xxiii.  [On  Cyril  Lucar,  see  Neale's  Holy  Eastern  Church,  4  vols.,  1848-50. 
British  Magazine,  Sept.,  1842,  Dec.,  1843,  Jan.  and  June,  1844.  MohniJce , 
in  Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1832.  A.  Twesten ,  in  Deutsche  Zeitschrift,  Sept, 
and  Oct.,  1850.  Edinburgh  Rev.,  April,  1858.  Spectateur  de  l’Orient, 
1855.  KvpiXXog  A ovuapig,  o  binopevuibg  narpidpxyg.  'Yno  Maprcov 
'Eevrepy,  Athens,  1859,  Comp.  Gersdorfs  Repert.,  Sept.,  1860.  Princeton 
Review,  vol.  5.] 

3  "Efcdecfig  rrjg  tgjv  fP gjo&v  mareorg,  1642;  afterwards  under  the  title: 
’OpOodogoq  opoXoyia  rrjg  nadoXuirjg  real  dTTOoroXucrjg  etacXrjoiag  dvaroXucrjg . 
Kimmel,  p.  45,  and  Prolegomena  p.  1.  Comp.  Synodus  Hierosolymitana 
ad  vers.  Calvinistas  anno  MDCLXXII.  sub  Patriarch  a  Hierosolymorum 
celebrata,  in  Kimmel,  p.  325,  sq.,  and  Prolegomena,  p.  lxxv.  \Hase,  Glau- 
benszeugnisse  der  griechischen  Kirche  :  in  Appendix  to  5th  ed.  of  his  Dog- 
matik,  1860.  Macaire ,  Theologie  dogm.  orthodoxe,  traduite  par  un  Russe. 
2  vols.,  Paris,  1860.  R.  W.  Plackmore,  Doctrine  of  the  Russian  Church, 
translated,  Lond.  A.  JV.  Monravieff,  Hist,  of  the  Church  of  Russia,  transl. 
by  Plackmore.  John  Covel,  Account  of  the  Greek  Church,  Lond.  1722. 
Antiquit.  Eccl.  Orient.,  Lond.  1682,  (see  Notes  and  Queries,  x.,  p.  60.)  The 
Greek  Church  in  Russia,  its  Rites,  Doctrines,  etc.,  by  John  G.  King,  4to., 
Lond.  1772.  The  Orthodox  Doctrine  of  Apost.  Eastern  Chh.,  transl.,  G. 
Petassaco ,  Lond.  1858.  W.  Peveridge,  Synodikon,  sive  Pandectae  Cano- 
num,  etc.,  ab  Eccl.  Grseca  recept.,  2  vols.,  Oxon.  1672-82.  H.  J.  Schmitt , 
Krit.  Gesch.  d.  neu-griech  und  Russ.  Kirche,  1850  (4).  Gass  in  Herzog’s  Re- 
alencycl.  Palmer  on  the  Church,  i.,  176-206,  and  in  his  Dissertations.  Pit - 
zipios,  L’  Eglise  Orientale.  Articles  in  New  York  Rev.,  Oct.,  1853  ;  Christ. 
Remembrancer,  July,  1853  ;  Church  of  Eng.  Quarterly,  July,  1854  ;  Christ. 
Rev.,  1855  ;  Christ.  Examiner,  1855  ;  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  {Manning),  1858  ; 


208 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Encyclop,  Britan.  (8th  ed.),  by  Hetherington.  Dean  Waddington ,  Hist,  of 
Greek  Church,  new  ed.,  1854.  Stanley ,  Lect.  on  East.  Church,  Lond.,  1861.] 


Y. — MINOR  RELIGIOUS  PARTIES  (SECTS). 

§  232. 

Schlusselburg.  Conrad ,  Catalogus  haereticorum  Francoff.,  1696.  ss.  xiii.  8.  Erbkam , 
Gesch.  d.  Protest.  Secten  im  Zeitalter  der  Reformation,  Hamb.  1848. 


While  the  reform  was  pursuing  its  great  work,  various  tendencies 
also  manifested  themselves  in  opposition  to  the  existing  Catholic 
Church,  which  we  may  in  part  regard  as  a  continuation  of  an  earlier 
unchurchly  spirit  of  antagonism,  and  partly  as  the  one-sided  nega¬ 
tive  efforts  of  a  narrow-minded  criticism.  Protestants  could  not 
make  common  cause  with  them  without  becoming  disintegrated. 
On  that  account,  Anabaptism  and  Unitarianism,  which  had  already 
been  rejected  by  the  Catholic  Church  (though  under  different  forms), 
met  with  an  equally  decisive  opposition  from  Lutherans  and  Calvin¬ 
ists,  and  were,  accordingly,  stigmatized  as  sects.  And,  again,  at  a 
later  period,  several  sects  made  their  appearance,  of  which  only  a  few, 
e,  g.  the  Society  of  Friends,  have  prolonged  their  existence  to  the 
present  time.  On  the  other  hand,  the  rigid  dogmatism  of  the  Pro¬ 
testant  churches  might  evoke  a  justifiable  opposition,  and  compel 
the  more  moderate  to  build  their  chapel  by  the  side  of  the  church. 
This  was  the  case  with  the  Arminians  (Remonstrants),  who  formed 
not  so  much  a  sect,  as  a  fraction  of  the  Reformed  Church. 

f 

§  233. 

A.  ANABAPTISTS  (MENNONITES.) 


Schyn ,  Historia  Christianorum,  qui  in  Belgio  Foederato,  Mennonitse  appellantur.  Amstel 
1723.  8,  Runzmger,da3  religiose  Kirchen-und  Schulwesen  der  Mennoniten.  Speier 
181.  8.  Oobel ,  Geschichte  des  Christl.  Lebens  in  d.  Rhein.  Westph.  Kirche,  ii.  290 

sq.  For  the  rest  of  the  literature  see  the  works  on  Church  History. — [Rase,  431,  610, 
and  his  Reich  d.  Wiedertaufer  in  his  Neue  Propheten,  and  separately,  1860.  Eoch- 
muth  in  Zeitschrift  f.  hist.  Theol.  1858-9.  Gieseler's  Church  Hist.,  (N.  Y.)  Yol.  iv., 
§  30,  32.  J.  J.  Van  Osterzee  in  Herzog’s  Realencyclop.  Reberle ,  Die  Anfunge  des 
Anabapst.  in  der  Schweiz,  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theologie,  1858.  Supplement  to  Neal’s 
Hist,  of  Puritans.  J.  Ivwiey ,  Hist,  of  Eng.  Baptists.  G.  H.  Orchard,  Hist,  of  Foreign 
Baptists,  1855.  Publications  of  Hansard  Knollys  Soc.  England.  Martyrology  of  Bap¬ 
tist  Churches,  from  the  Dutch  of  P.  J.  Van  Beaght,  2,  Lond.  1850-3.  Backus ,  Hist,  of 
English  and  Am.  Baptists;  2,  1772-84,  and  often  reprinted.  T.  F.  Curtis,  Progress 
of  Baptist  Principles,  N.  Y.,  1855.  S.  S.  Cutting,  Hist.  Vindications,  Bost.  1859. 
C.  A.  Cornelius,  Die  Wiedertaufer,  1860, — second  part  of  his  Gesch.  d.  munsterigchen 
Aufruhrs.] 


§  233.  Anabaptists  (Mennonites.) 


209 


Infant  Baptism  was  at  first  opposed  by  rude  enthusiasts  and  the 
promoters  of  revolution.1  But,  at  a  later  period,  about  the  middle 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  Menno  Simonis ,8  a  native  of  Holland, 
succeeded  in  collecting  those  who  held  these  views  concerning  bap¬ 
tism,  and  in  constituting  a  regular  denomination,  which  took  the 
name  of  Mennonites ,  and,  in  the  course  of  time,  divided  itself  into 
several  smaller  bodies.3  The  earliest  confession  of  faith  adopted  by 
the  Mennonites,  is  that  drawn  up  by  John  Hies,  and  Lubbert  Ge- 
rardi ,  about  the  year  1580. 4  Other  confessions  of  faith  do  not  enjoy 
such  general  authority  among  the  adherents  of  this  sect.5 

1  Concerning  the  first  movements  of  the  prophets  of  Zwickau  (. Nicholas 
S torch,  Martin  Cellarius  [Borhaus],  Mark  Stubner ,  and  Thomas  Munzer ) 
and  of  Carlstadt ,  as  well  as  concerning  the  Anabaptists  of  Switzerland,  and 
the  negotiations  with  them  ( Grebel ,  Manx,  Hochrutener,  Hubmeier ,  and 
others) ;  and  also,  respecting  the  disturbances  made  by  the  Anabaptists  of 
Munster  ( Rottman ,  JBochold,  Knipper  dolling),  see  the  works  on  the  history 
of  the  Reformation.  Concerning  their  doctrines  (though  from  the  polemical 
point  of  view)  see  Melancthon's  Yorlegung  etlicher  unchristlicher  Artikel, 
welche  die  Wiedertaufer  vorgeben,  in  the  German  works  of  Luther ,  Yol.  ii. 

of  the  edition  of  Wittenberg,  p.  282  ss . Justus  Menius ,  de  Weidertau- 

fer,  Lehre  und  Geheimniss  aus  heil.  Schrift  widerlegt.  ibid.  p.  299  ss. — JBull- 
inger,  von  der  Wiedertaufe  Ursprung,  Secten  und  Wesen.  Ztir.  1561.  4 
Ott ,  Annales  anabaptistici.  Bas.  1624.  [  C.  A .  Cornelius,  Gesch.  des  miinsteris- 
chen  Aufruhs,  in  3  Buchern,  i.  1855  ;  ii.  Die  Widertaufe  I860.]  Hast,  Gesch. 
Widertaufer,  Munster,  1836.  The  remarkable  mixture  of  (montanistic)  fanat¬ 
icism,  transgressing  the  limits  of  Scripture,  with  narrow-minded  adherence 
to  the  letter  of  Scripture,  was  already  remarked  upon  by  Zuingle  ;  see  his 
works  (edited  by  Schuler  and  Schulthess)  ii.  1.  p.  298  :  “ Sometimes  they  in¬ 
sist  upon  taking  the  letter  in  its  strict  sense,  without  understanding  it  and 
vhthout  any  interpretation  ;  sometimes  they  wholly  refuse  to  admit  it  A 

2  Menno  was  born  a.  d.  1505,  and  died  1561.  The  fundamental  principles 
of  Mennonitism  are  :  The  rejection  of  infant  baptism,  the  refusal  to  take  oaths, 
and  to  serve  in  the  army,  and  lastly,  the  rite  of  washing  the  feet. 

3  Waterlandians  and  Flamingians,  the  more  refined  and  the  more  rude. 
Concerning  their  further  gradations,  and  the  entire  history  of  that  sect  and 
its  spread,  see  the  works  on  ecclesiastical  history. 

4  It  appeared  under  the  title  :  Korde  Belydenisse  des  Geloofs,  etc. :  Prae- 
cipuorum  Christian®  Fidei  Articulorum  brevis  Confessio.  1580.  The  Latin 
edition  which  is  given  by  Schyn  1.  c.  c.  7,  p.  172  ss.  consists  of  40  articles. 
[On  the  Confessions  of  the  English  Baptists  see  Cutting,  ubi  supra,  and  the 
work  of  Underhill,  for  Hansard  Knollys  Soc.  referred  to  §  222,  last  Note.] 

5  Comp.  Schyn  1.  c.  Kocher,  Bibl.  Symb.  p.  467  ss.  Winer ,  pp.  24,  25. 

(Concerning  their  Catechisms,  see  ibid.) 


210 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  oe  Symbolism. 


§  234. 

B.  UNITARIANS  (SOCINIANS.) 

Sandii,  O.  C.  Bibliotheca  Antitrinitariorum.  Freist.  (Amst.)  1684  8.  Bock,  F.  S.,  Historia 
Antitrinitariorum,  maxime  Socinianismi  et  Socinianorum.  Regiomont.  1774— 84 
*Trechsel,  die  protestantischen  Antitrinitarier  vor  Faustus  Socinus.  1.  Buch. 
Michael  Servet  und  seine  Yorganger.  Heidelb.  1839.  8  ;  2.  Buch.  Lelio  Socino  und 
die  Anti  trinit.  seiner  Zeit.  1844  0.  Fock ,  der  Socinianismus  nach  seiner  Stellung 

in  der  Gesaurntentwicklung  des  Christl.  Lebens,  nach  seinem  Yerlauf,  und  nach  sei- 
nem  Lehrbegriffe,  Kiel,  1847.  Hilgenfeld ,  Kritische  Studien  iiber  den  Socinianismus, 
In  Zeller’s  Jahrbucher,  1848,  s.  371,  sq.  [ Fock ,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  Hist.  Theol.,  1845. 
Literatur  des  Socin.  ibid.,  1853.  J.  P.  BauermeisUr ,  de  Syst.  Socin.  Dogmat.  Comment, 
ires.  Rostock,  1830-3.  L.  Lange,  Gesch.  des  Lehrbegriffs  des  Socinian.  Leips.  1831. 
Baur ,  Lehre  d.  Dreieinigkeit,  iii.,  46,  sq.  Dorner ,  Lehre  v.  d.  Person  Christi,  ii.,  751,  sq. 
Th.  Lindsey,  Hist.  Yiew  of  Unit,  from  the  Reformation,  Lond.  1783,  and  Mem.  of  L., 
by  Belsham,  Lond.  1812.  Thos.  Reez ,  Racovian  Catechism,  with  Hist.  Introd.  Lond. 
1818.  Wallace,  Anti-Trinitarian  Biography.  J.  R.  Beard,  Historical  Illustrations  of 
Trinity,  Lond.  1846.] 

While  infant  baptism  and  other  doctrines  were  opposed  on  prac¬ 
tical  grounds,  the  orthodox  dogma  of  the  Trinity  was,  about  the 
same  time,  attacked  from  the  theoretical  point  of  view,  so  that  the 
history  of  the  first  Unitarians,  from  the  period  of  the  Reformation, 
appears  in  many  aspects  entangled  with  that  of  the  Anabaptists.1 
The  violent  persecutions,  by  which  both  Roman  Catholics  and  Pro¬ 
testants  endeavoured  to  suppress  Unitarianism,2  most  marked  in  the 
execution  of  Michael  Servetus ,3  could  not  prevent  the  formation  of 
a  sect,4  which  maintained,  that  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Deity 
could  not  be  proved  from  the  Scripture,  though  they  acknowledged 
its  Divine  origin,  and  professed  all  reverence  for  the  human  person 
of  Christ.  By  the  labors  of  Lcelius  Socinus ,6  and  still  more  of  his 
nephew  Faustus  Socinus ,6  the  scattered  Unitarian  party  were  united 
into  a  distinct  church  organization,  and  adopted  the  name  of  Socin- 
ians.  The  onesided  rationalistic  tendency  of  Socinianism  included 
the  germs  both  of  later  Rationalism  (negatively),  and  of  a  merely 
external  biblical  Supernaturalism  (positively),  and  thus  contributed 
to  the  transition  from  one  period  to  another.7  The  appellation  Ra- 
covienses ,  which  is  also  applied  to  the  Socinians,  as  well  as  the 
name  of  their  catechism,  Catechismus  Racoviensis,  were  derived  from 
the  Polish  town  Racow.8  Besides  the  authors  of  that  catechism, 
the  following  theologians  more  fully  developed  the  Socinian  doctrine 
— viz.  Jonas  Schlichting ,  J  Volkel ,  John  and  Samuel  Crell ,  Christ¬ 
ian  Ostorodt ,  Valentine  Schmalz ,  Lewis  Wolzogen ,  Andrew  Wisso - 
watius ,  and  others.9  [The  controversy  passed  over  into  England, 
where  it  was  continued  by  Bishop  Bull,10  and  especially  by  Clarke 
and  Waterland  in  the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century.11] 


§  234.  Unitarians  (Socinians.) 


211 


1  “  That  which  the  Anabaptists  attempted  in  reference  to  the  Church  and 
to  practical  religion ,  other  theologians,  of  a  tendency  closely  allied  to  it,  and 
largely  impregnated  with  Anabaptistic  elements,  sought  to  accomplish  in  re¬ 
ference  to  theology .  The  latter  tendency  was ,  properly  speaking ,  only  a  dis¬ 
tinct  branch  of  the  former,  and  a  particular  form  and  expression  of  the  same 
general  movement .”  Trechsel,  1.  c.  p.  8.  What  was  said  §  232,  concerning 
the  onesided  rationalistic  system  of  criticism  (which  apparently  forms  a 
contrast  to  the  fanaticism  of  the  Anabaptists)  has  primary  reference  to  the 
later  development  of  Unitarianism  by  Socinus.  Comp,  note  7,  and  Trechsel, 
pp.  3  and  4.  Baumgarten-Crusius,  Corapend.  i.  pp.  332,  333,  also  regards 
the  Antitrinitarians  as  the  speculative  opposition,  the  Anabaptists  as  the 
practical  one. 

2  Among  the  earlier  Antitrinitarians  we  may  mention  :  Lewis  Hetzer ,  of 

Bischofszell  in  the  Thurgau  (Switzerland)  ;  he  was  executed  at  Constance 
a.  d.  1529;  John  Dench ,  a  native  of  the  Upper-Palatinate.  [On  Dench 
and  Hetzer ,  see  Gieseler,  iv.  351  ;  Keim,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  Hist.  Theol., 
1856,  and  in  Herzog’s  Realencyclop.  sub  voce ;  Hefele ,  in  Stud.  u.  Kritiken, 
1855.]  Jacob  Kautz,  of  Bockenlieim ;  Conrad  in  Gassen,  a  native  of  Wir- 
temberg  (he  was  executed  at  Basle  a.  d.  1559)  ;  John  Campanus,  a  native 
of  Holland,  who  was  professor  in  the  University  of  Wittenberg ;  Melchior 
Hofmann ,  at  Strassburg  ;  Adam  Pistoris ,  and  Rudolph  Martini,  both  natives 
of  Westphalia;  David  Joris,  of  Bruges,  an  Anabaptist  [comp.  Gieseler, 
iv.  353,  Note  9],  and  Claudius  of  Savoy.  On  their  doctrines,  concerning 
which  they  widely  differed,  inasmuch  as  some  adopted  the  notions  of  Arius, 
others  those  of  Sabellius,  or  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  compare  Trechsel,  1.  c. 
(Section  i.),  and  the  special  history  of  doctrines.  John  Valdez,  a  native  of 
Spain,  who  died  a.  d.  1540  at  Naples,  is  also  numbered  by  some  writers, 
not  only  among  the  promoters  of  the  Reformation,  but  also  among  the 
forerunners  of  Unitarianism  ;  on  the  other  side,  comp.  Sandius,  loc.  cit. 
2-6,  and  C.  Schmid,  in  Illgens  Zeitschrift  fur  historische  Theologie,  i.  4. 
p.  837.  * 

s  Servetus ,  surnamed  Reves,  was  born  a.  d.  1509,  or  1511,  at  Yillaneuva, 
in  the  kingdom  of  Arragon,  accompanied  the  Emperor  Charles  Y.  on  his 
expedition  to  Italy  (1529),  took  up  his  residence  in  Basle,  1530  (with 
(Ecolampadius),  and  wrote  (1531)  his  work  entitled:  De  Trinitatis  Errori- 
bus,  libri  YII.  Afterwards  he  abode  several  times  in  France,  etc.  His  trial 
and  execution  took  place  at  Geneva,  a.  d.  1553.  Concerning  the  history  of 
his  life,  see  Mosheim,  neue  Nachrichten  von  dem  beriihmten  span.  Arzte, 
Michael  Serveto,  Helmst.,  1756,  4,  and  Trechsel ,  1.  c.  [On  Servetus,  see 
Henry,  Leben  Calvin,  iii.  95  ;  Baur’s  Dreieinigkeit,  iii.  54  ;  Heberle,  in 
Ttibing.  theol.  Zeitschrift,  1840  ;  A.  Rilliet,  Relation  du  Proces  criminel 
contre  M.  Servet,  Geneve,  1844  ;  Schade,  Etude  sur  le  Proces,  Strasb.,  1853; 
Saisset ,  in  Revue  des  deux  Mondes,  Feb.,  Mar.,  1848  ;  Calvin  and  Servetus, 
by  T.  K.  Tweedie,  Edinb. ;  Calv.  and  Serv.,  by  T.  S.  Porter ,  Lond.,  1854  ; 
Bulletin  de  la  Societe  pour  l’Hist.  du  Protest.  Fran§ais,  1858.] 

4  To  this  sect  belonged  also  John  Valentin  Gentilis  (he  was  executed  at 
Berne  a.  d.  1566);  Paul  Alciat  (who  died  atDantzic,  1565),  Matthceus  Grit* 
baldi  (his  death  took  place  1564  in  Savoy),  George  Blandrata  (who  lived  ir 


212 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Poland  and  Transylvania,  and  died  1590),  and  in  some  measure  (?)  Bernard 
Ochino  (he  died  1564  in  Moravia),  Celius  Sec.  Curio  (he  died  1569),  Paul 
Vergerius  (he  died  1565),  and  several  others.  From  the  middle  of  the  six¬ 
teenth  century  Antitrinitarian  principles  were  chiefly  spread  in  Poland.  The 
Socinians  formed  themselves  into  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  body  at  the  Synods  of 
Pinczow  and  Petrikow  (1563-65.)  [See  F.  Meyer ,  Die  evang.  Gemeinde 
io  Locarno,  2  Bde.,  Zurich,  1836.  Heberle,  on  Blandrata  in  Tubing.  Zeit- 
schrift  f.  Theol.,  1840.  Bock ,  in  Hist.  Antitrinit.] 

6  Lcelius  Socinus  was  born  at  Siena  a.  d.  1525,  and  died  1562. — See 
C.  F.  Illgen ,  Vita  Lselii  Socini.  Lips.,  1814,  8.  J.  C.  Orelli ,  Lselius  Soci¬ 
nus,  in  the  Basler  Wissenschaftliche  Zeitschrift.,  1824,  part  3,  p.  28.  ss., 
and  the  requisite  documents,  ibid.,  p.  138,  ss.  [ Gieseler ,  Vol.  iv,  p.  358.] 

c  Faustus  Socinus  was  born  a.  d.  1539,  and  died  1604.  Comp,  the 
memoir  of  his  life  by  Pizipcovius  in  Bibliotheca  Fratrum  Polonorum  (note 
9),  P.  i.  He  chiefly  labored  in  Poland  and  Transylvania.  Baumgarten - 
Crusius  justly  designates  Lselius  Socinus  “  the  spiritual  father  of  Socinian - 
ism,”  and  Faustus  Socinus  “  the  founder  of  the  sect.”  Compend.  i.  p.  334. 
[ Gieseler ,  iv.  365.] 

7  u  We  may  call  Socinianism  the  common  birth-place  at  once  of  the  Supra - 
naturalism  and  the  Rationalism  of  modern  Protestant  theology .”  Strauss , 
christliche  Glaubenslehre,  i.  p.  56. 

8  An  older  Socinian  Catechism  was  composed  by  George  Schomann ,  a 
Socinian  minister  in  Cracow,  who  died  A.  d.  1591.  It  was  followed  by  that 
of  F.  Socinus,  which  appeared  under  the  title  :  Christianae  Religionis  bre- 
vissima  Institutio  per  interrogationes  et  responsiones,  quam  Catechismum 
vulgo  vocant.  Racov.,  1618,  8.  (It  was  incomplete,  inasmuch  as  it  includes 
only  theology  and  christology.)  It  formed  the  basis  of  the  larger  Socinian 
catechism,  which  was  composed  by  Hieronymus  Moscorovius ,  a  Polish  no¬ 
bleman,  who  died  1625,  and  Valentin  Schmalz ,  a  Socinian  minister,  and 
published  1605,  12,  in  the  Polish  language.  It  was  translated  into  Latin 
under  the  title  :  Catechesis  Ecclesiarum,  quae  in  regno  Polon.  et  magno 
ducatu  Lithuaniae  et  aliis  ad  istud  regnum  pertinentibus  provinciis  aflirmant, 
neminem  alium  praeter  patrem  domini  nostri  J.  C.  esse  ilium  unum  Deum 
Israelis,  hominem  autem  ilium,  Jesum  Naz.,  qui  ex  virgine  natus  est,  nec 
alium  praeter  aut  ante  ipsum,  Dei  filium  unigenitum  et  agnoscunt  et  confi- 
tentur.  Racov.,  1609,  12. — A  new  edition,  together  with  a  refutation,  was 
published  by  G.  L.  Oeder,  Francf.  and  Leips.,  1739,  8;  here  the  questions 
are  for  the  first  time  numbered.  [This  Catechism  was  ordered  to  be  burnt 
by  the  Parliament  of  England,  in  1652.  It  was  translated,  with  Notes  and 
Illustrations,  and  a  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Unitarianism,  by  Thos.  Rees, 
Lond.,  1818.  Extracts  in  Gieseler ,  iv.  367,  s^.]  Concerning  other  editions, 
which  also  contain  other  confessions  of  faith  adopted  by  the  Socinians 
(the  Confessio  Fidei  drawn  up  by  Joh.  Schlichting,  1646,  8,)  comp.  Winer , 
pp.  25,  26. 

9  Their  writings  are  collected  in  the  Bibliotheca  Fratrum  Polonorum, 
quos  Unitarios  vocant.  Irenop.  [Amst.],  1626,  6  vols.,  fol.  For  further 
particulars,  see  Winer ,  p.  27.  [On  the  division  into  Non-Adorantes  (Da- 
vidis),  and  Adorantes,  see  Gieseler ,  iv.  569,  sq.  The  doctrine  of  the  Ador> 


§  234.  Unitarians  (Socinians.) 


213 


antes  in  S^mma  Universse  Theol.  Christ.,  1787,  from  the  papers  of  Michael 
Lombard  Sz.  Abrahami,  died  1658,  ed.  by  George  Markos .] 

10  [Bp.  Bull's  (see  §  225,  b.,  Note  18)  Defensio  Fidei  Nicaen.,  was  pub¬ 
lished  in  1685,  (written  several  years  previous,  but  could  not  find  a  publisher), 
and  was  directed  against  Sandius  (a  Socinian,  died  at  Amst.,  1680),  author 
of  Nucleus  Hist.  Eccles.  exhibitus  in  Hist.  Arian.,  and  collector  of  the  Bib¬ 
liotheca  Anti-Trinitar.) ;  Zuicker ,  b.  1612,  a  physician  of  Dantzic,  author  of 
Irenicum  Irenicorum,  1658,  also  a  Socinian;  and  in  fact  against  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  Petavius  as  to  the  views  and  authority  of  the  Fathers.  Bull’s  Judi- 
cum  Ecclesise  Catholicse,  1694,  is  in  part  against  the  views  of  Episcopius 
and  Curcellaeus  (successor  of  Episcopius  at  Amsterdam,  died  1658),  who  had 
also  been  attacked  by  Maresius,  1650,  in  his  Defensio  Fidei  Cathol.  His 
Primitive  and  Apostolic  Tradition,  1703,  in  continuation  of  the  contro¬ 
versy,  is  against  the  Socinian  interpretation  of  the  views  of  the  early  fathers. 
— Among  the  English  Socinian  writers  of  this  period,  were  Dr.  Arthur 
Bury ,  The  Naked  Gospel,  1690  (a  Historical  Vindication  of  the  same  is 
ascribed  to  Le  Clerc)  :  John  Biddle ,  d.  1662,  Tracts,  3  vols.,  reprint,  1691-5 ; 
Thos.  Firmin ,  d.  1697,  Life,  Lond.,*  1698,  with  an  account  of  the  Unit, 
controversy;  and  Gilbert  Gierke,  who  in  his  Ante-Nicenismus,  1695,  and 
other  works,  replied  to  Bull’s  Defensio.] 

11  \Samuel  Clarke's  (see  §  225,  b.  Note  51)  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  was  published  in  1712  (see  vol.  fourth  of  his  Works,  containing  his 
further  controversial  writings  on  the  subject),  advocating  the  high  Arian 
view.  It  was  answered  by  Dr.  Wells ,  1713,  Nelson ,  Jas.  Knight ,  Bp.  Gas- 
trell,  Dr.  John  Edwards  (who  also  opposed  Bull’s  subordination  scheme), 
Welchman ,  Ewd.  Potter ,  Richard  Mayo ,  and  others. — In  1719  Dr.  Daniel 
Waterland  published  his  Vindication  of  Christ’s  Divinity,  a  Defence  of 
some  Queries  (1726),  in  relation  to  Clarke’s  scheme,  in  Answer  to  Jackson, 
(b.  1686,  d.  1763),  and  a  second  Vindication  in  1732  ;  and  a  further  Vindi¬ 
cation,  1734  (Works,  vol.  i.  ii.  iii.)  Daniel  Whitby  (b.  1638,  d.  1726), 
when  he  published  his  Commentaries  was  orthodox,  but  in  1715  wrote  Dis- 
quisitiones  Modestae  in  Clariss.  Bulli  Defens.  Fid.  Nic.,  to  show  that  the 
controversy  between  Clarke  and  Waterland  was  not  decided  by  Christian 
antiquity.  Waterland  replied  (Works,  ii.  232-279)  ;  Whitby’s  rejoinder, 
1720,  and  Waterland’s  Answer,  1720  ;  Whitby’s  Last  Thoughts.  Jackson 
also  wrote  (aided  by  Clarke),  a  Reply  to  Waterland,  1722,  and  remarks  on 
W.’s  Second  Defence  by  Philalethes  Cantabrig. — Edm.  Calamy's  Sermons 
on  Trinity,  1722.  Webster ,  in  1735,  at  Waterland’s  request,  translated 
Mainbourg’s  Hist,  of  Arianism. —  William  Whiston,  b.  1667,  d.  1732,  in  his 
Prim.  Christ.  Revived,  5  vols.,  1711-12,  and  on  Primitive  Liturgies,  2d  ed., 
Lond.,  1730. — A.  A.  Sykes ,  Modest  Plea  and  Modest  Plea  continued  (thi» 
latter,  1720,  by  Clarke). — Thomas  Emlyn  was  also  a  leading  advocate  of 
Arianism  (b.  1663,  d.  1743),  Works,  3  vols.,  Lond.,  1746 — the  first  two 
volumes  chiefly  on  this  controversy  in  reply  to  Stillingfleet,  Bennet,  Willis, 
Leslie,  etc.  The  Rom.  Cath.  divine  Ha, warden,  also  wrote  an  acute  Answer 
to  Dr.  Clarke,  and  Mr.  Whiston,  etc.,  by  IT.  E.,  Lond.,  1729. — For  the  His- 
torjT  of  this  controversy,  see  Van  Mildert's  Life  of  Waterland  (prefixed  to 
W.’s  works) ;  life  of  Clarke;  Whistou’s  Memoirs,  3  vols.,  1749-50;  Wbis- 


214 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


ton’s  Mem.  of  Clarke,  1730:  Disney’s  Life  of  Sykes;  Nelson's  Life  of 
Bull;  Toulmin’s  Life  of  Biddle;  Lindsey's  Hist.  Unitarianism.  On  the 
question  of  the  Unitarianism  of  Milton,  Locke,  and  Newton,  see  Hales’  on 
Trinity;  King’s  Life  of  Locke;  Unit.  Tracts,  Bost.,  No.  77;  Smythe,  in 
Southern  Presb.  Rev.,  1854.  On  Milton’s  Christ.  Doctrines,  see  Bib.  Sacra, 
1860.  For  a  full  list  of  the  works  in  the  above  Trinitarian  Controversy, 
see  Watt’s  Bibliotheca  Britannica,  4  vols.,  Edinb.,  1824,  and  the  Biographia 
Britan.,  7  vols.,  fob,  1747.] 


§  235. 

e 

C.  ARMINIANS  (REMONSTRANTS.) 

Regenboog ,  Geschichte  der  Remonstranten.  Transl.  from  the  Dutch.  Lemgo,  1781.  *Abr. 
des  Amorie  van  der  Uneven ,  bet  tweede  Eeuwfest  van  het  Seminarium  der  Remon¬ 
stranten,  Leeuwarden.  1830.  8.  [For  the  literature  of  the  controversy,  see  Gieseler 
(N.  Y.  edition)  iv.,  §  43,  p.  505. — The  works  of  Uytenbogcert,  Triglandius,  Brandt,  Re - 
genboog,  Mosche,  G.  S.  Franckius,  De  Hist.  Dogm.  Armin.,  Killiae,  1813.  Brandt's 
History  transl.,  4  vols.,  Lond.  1720-23,  1770.  Schweizer,  Protest.  Centraldogmen,  ii., 
31-201.  Gass,  Gesch.  d.  Protest.  Dogmatik,  ii.  Graf,  Beitrage  zur  Gesch.  d.  Synode 
von  Dordrecht,  Basel,  1825.  John  Hales' ,  Hist.  Cone.  Dord,  ed.  Mosheimius,  Hamb. 
1724:  and  in  Hales'  Golden  Remains,  1673,  1690.  Thos.  Scott,  Articles  of  Synod  of 
Dort,  Works,  vol.  8;  Utica,  1821,  and  often.  Article  Arminius,  by  Pelt  in  Herzog’s 
Realen  cyclop.] 


Excluded  from  the  Reformed  Church,  on  account  of  their  more 
moderate  views  concerning  predestination,  the  Armenians  found  them¬ 
selves  compelled  to  form  a  distinct  religious  community,1  the  princi¬ 
ples  of  which  are  contained  both  in  the  Five  Articles  of  the  Remon¬ 
strants  (a.  d.  1610), 2  and  in  the  confession  of  faith  drawn  up  by  Simon 
Episcopius.3  Arminianism  is  characterized  not  only  by  holding  to 
the  universality  of  the  provision  for  redemption,  but  also  by  a  kind 
of  moderate  orthodoxy,  almost  imperceptibly  commingled  with  heter¬ 
odox  elements,  and  has  chief  respect  to  the  moral  rather  than  the 
rigid  dogmatic  element.  As  regards  its  tendency,  it  is,  in  some  re¬ 
spects,  allied  to  the  sober  common  sense  of  Socinianism,  but  it  has, 
at  the  same  time,  preserved  a  sufficient  amount  of  positive  religion, 
to  oppose 'the  special  negative  doctrines  of  that  creed.  Next  to  Ar¬ 
minius  himself,  and  Simon  Episcopius ,  Hugo  Grotius ,4  and  Philip 
a  Limborch ,5  were  the  most  distinguished  of  the  Arminian  theolo¬ 
gians,  the  former  in  his  philosophico-apologetic  and  exegetical  writ¬ 
ings,  the  latter  in  his  doctrinal  works.  The  Arminian  Church 
numbered  also  among  its  members  many  eminent  men,6  who  exerted 
a  beneficial  reaction  upon  Protestantism  by  their  thorough  scientific 
attainments  no  less  than  by  the  mildness  of  their  sentiments.7  [On 
English  Arminians,  see  §  225,  b.,  Note  15,  etc.] 


§  235.  Arminians  (Remonstrants.) 


215 


1  Arminius  (Harmsen,  or  Hermann,)  was  born  a.  d.  1560  at  Oudewater, 
taught  from  the  year  1603  theology  in  the  university  at  Leyden,  and  died 
1609.  His  theological  works  were  published,  Lugd.  Bat.  1629,  4.  On  the 
controversy  between  him  and  his  colleague,  Franciscus  Gomarus ,  and  its 
consequences,  see  the  works  on  ecclesiastical  history.  [Life  and  death  of 
Arminius  and  Episcopius,  Lond.,  1672;  Life  of  A.  by  Brandt ,  transl.  by 
John  Guthrie ,  Lond.,  1855;  by  N.  Bangs,  New  York,  1844.  Works  of 
Arminius,  transl.,  3  vols.,  Auburn,  New  York,  1852  (a  more  complete  ed. 
than  that  of  Jas.  Nichols ,  Lond.,  3  vols.,  1825-8).  Moses  Stuart ,  The 
Creed  of  Arminius  (to  show  that  he  was  not  an  Arminian),  Bibl.  Repos., 
1831.  Articles  on  Arminius  by  Warren ,  in  Meth.  Qu.  (N.  Y.),  1857,  also 
in  vol.  iv. ;  Christ.  Examiner,  1860;  Lit.  and  Theol.  Rev.,  vol.  vi. — Francis 
Gomarus ,  the  chief  opponent  of  Arminius,  b.  1563,  Prof.  Leyden,  1594,  at 
Saumur,  1614,  at  Groningen,  1618,  d.  1641 ;  Opera  Theol.,  2d  ed.,  Amst., 
1664.] 

a  They  were  presented  to  the  States  of  Holland  and  West-Friesland 
under  the  title :  Remonstrantia,  Libellus  Supplex  exhibitus  Hollandise  et 
Westfrisiae  Ordinibus  ;  they  are  reprinted  in  Walch,  Religionsstreitigkeiten 
ausser  der  lutherischen  Kirche,  iii.  p.  540,  ss.  [In  Gieseler ,  iv.  (N.  Y.  ed.), 
p.  508,  Note.] 

3  Simon  Episcopius  (Bishop)  was  born  a.  d.  1583,  and  died  1643.  Con- 
fessio  seu  Declaratio  Sententiae  Pastorum,  qui  in  foederato  Belgio  Remon- 
strantes  vocantur,  super  praecipuis  Articulis  Relig.  Christ.,  Harderov.,  1622,  4 
(in  Sim.  Episc.  Opp.  ii.  2,  p.  69,  ss.)  It  consists  of  25  chapters.  Con¬ 
cerning  the  different  editions  and  translations  of  that  confession  see  Clarisse , 
Encycl.  Theol.  p.  443,  and  Winer ,  p.  23. — Episcopius  wrote  his  Apologia 
pro  Confessione,  etc.,  1629  (1630?)  4,  Opp.  p.  95,  ss.,  in  reply  to  the  Censura 
in  Confess.  Remonstr.  (Lugd.  Bat.,  1626),  composed  by  J.  Polyander , 
Andrew  Rivetus ,  Anton  Waleeus ,  and  Ant.  Thysius ,  all  of  them  profes¬ 
sors  in  the  university  of  Leyden.  As  regards  several  other  controversial 
matters,  comp.  Episcopii  Verus  Theologus  Remonstrans.  ibid.  p.  208,  ss. 
In  addition  Episcopius  wrote  Institutiones  Theologicae,  libri  iv.  (incom¬ 
plete ;  Opp.  [Amst.,  1650,  65,  Tom.  ii.  fob]  Tom.  i.)  On  the  catechisms 
composed  by  John  Uytenbogard ,  and  Bartholomew  Prcevostius ,  see  Winer , 
1.  c.  Heppe  in  Herzog’s  Realencyclop.,  iv.  100.  [Another  ed.  of  Episcopius, 
Opera,  2  fob,  Lond.,  1678  ;  his  Conf.  Fidei,  and  Apologia,  ii.  69-284,  Lim- 
borch ,  Vita  Episcopii,  Amst.,  1701.] 

4  Grotius  was  born  a.  d.  1583,  and  died  1645.  To  clear  himself  from 
the  charge  of  Socinianism,  he  wrote  his  Defensio  Fidei  Catholicae  de  Satis- 
factione  Christi,  1617,  8. — De  Yeritate  Rel.  Christ.  Lugd,  Bat.,  1627,  12. — 
Opp.  Theol.  Amst.,  1679,  iii.  f.,  1697,  iv.  fob  Bas.,  1731,  iv.  f.  (the  three 
first  volumes  contain  writings  of  an  exegetical  character).  See  *Luden , 
Hugo  Grotius  nach  seinen  Schicksalen  und  Schriften,  Berlin,  1806.  [Opera, 
Lond.,  3  vols.,  in  4  fob,  1679.  Truth  of  Christ.  Relig.,  transl.  by  John 
Clarke,  Lond.,  1793,  1860.  Life  by  Chs.  Eutler,  Lond.,  1826.  Life  by 

de  Eurigny ,  transl.  Lond.,  1754.  Grotian  Theory  of  Atonement,  from 
Baur,  by  Swain ,  Bib.  Sacra,  ix.  Articles  on  G.,  by  Osgood,  Christ.  Exam., 
42  ;  in  Southern  Rev.,  vol.  i,  Grotius  and  the  Sources  of  International  Law 


216 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


in  Edinb.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1860 — to  show  that  he  introduced  the  Protestant  prin¬ 
ciple  into  the  exposition  of  the  law  of  nations.] 

6  Limborch  was  born  a.  d.  1633,  professor  in  the  Gymnasium  of  the 
Remonstrants  at  Amsterdam,  and  died  1712.  His  Theologia  Christiana 
appeared  Amst.,  1686,  Basil.,  1735,  fol.  “  The  most  complete  exposi¬ 
tion  of  the  Arminian  doctrine  is  the  celebrated  work  by  Philip  a  Limborch , 
...  .a  man  distinguished  for  genius ,  learning ,  and  modesty ,  whose  literary 
labors  are  of  great  value.  The  very  arrangement  of  his  system  displays 
originality .  .  .  .  Admirable  perspicuity  and  judicious  selection  of  the  material 
characterise  the  entire  work  Staudlin ,  Geschichte  der  theologischen  Wis- 
senschaften,  i.  p.  319.  [Limborch’s  Complete  System  or  Body  of  Divinity, 
transl.  with  Improvements  from  Wilkins,  Tillotson,  Scott*  and  others,  by 
Wm.  Jones,  2,  8von  Lond.,  1702.  His  Hist,  of  Inquisition,  transl.  by  Sami. 
Chandler ,  fob,  Bond.,  1731.] 

6  The  following  were  distinguished  writers  on  dogmatic  theology:  Stephen 
Curcellceus ,  the  successor  of  Episcopius  ;  he  was  born  a.  d.  1586,  and  died 
1659.  He  wrote  Institutio  Relig.  Christ.  Libb.  7,  in  Opp.  Theol.  Amst., 
1675,  f.  (incomplete.) — Andr.  a  Cattenburgh  was  born  1664,  and  died  1743. 
He  wrote:  Spicilegium  Theol.  Christ.  Philippi  a  Limborch,  Amst.,  1726,  f. 
— Bibl.  Scriptor.  Remonstrantium.  [ John  le  Clerc,  b.  at  Geneva,  1657,  d. 
1736,  a  universal  scholar.  Account  of  his  Life  and  Writings,  Loud.,  1712. 
Vetus  Test.,  4  fob,  Amst.,  1710;  New  Test.,  1799;  Of  Incredulity,  transl. 
Lond.,  1697  ;  Bibliotheque  Universelle  et  Test.,  26  vols.,  Amst.,  1686-93. 
Bibb  choisie,  28  vols.,  1703-13;  Bibb  Ancienne  et  Moderne,  29  vols., 
1714-27.] 

7  The  Arminian  principle  which  renounced  the  authority  of  the  symbolical 
books,  gave  such  an  impulse  to  exegetical  investigations,  to  independent  her¬ 
meneutical  labors,  and  to  the  speculative  treatment  of  theology,  that  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  influence  exerted  by  the  works  of  Episcopius  and  Hugo  Gro- 
tius,  it  was  introduced  into  the  whole  Evangelical  Church.  Thus  a  general  desire 
manifested  itself  in  the  Protestant  Church  of  Germany,  to  do  away  with  the 
authority  of  the  symbolical  books.”  Schleiermacher ,  Kirchengeschichte,  p. 
620.  Comp.  Gass,  loc.  cit.,  435  :  “  The  Arminian  divines  constantly  make 
a  discount  upon  the  dogmas,  and  introduce  flowing  lines  among  their  sharp 
outlines,  and  so  keep  up  a  moderate  or  abbreviated  orthodoxy ,  no  longer  con¬ 
fined  to  the  symbolical  books,  and  which  is,  by  way  of  contrast ,  to  be  sup¬ 
ported  by  practical  piety  and  moral  zeal.” 


§  236. 

D.  QUAKERS. 

H.  Crcesii  Historia  Quakeriana.  Amstel.  1695.  ed.  2.  1103.  8.  Quaker  historie,  Berlin. 
W.  Sewel ,  Geschichte  von  dem  Ursprunge  des  christlichen  Volkes,  so  Quaker  gen- 
annt  werden,  [from  the  English,  publ.  fol.,  Lond.  1722].  H.  Tuke ,  die  Religions- 
grundsatze,  zu  welchen  die  Geselschaft  der  Quaker  sich  bekennt.  Transl.  from  the 
English  [1805],  Leipz.  1828.  J.  J.  Gurney ,  Observations  on  the  Peculiarities  of  the 
Society  of  Friends,  Lond.  1824.  [Penn,  Summary  of  the  History,  Doctrines,  and 


§  236.  Quakers. 


217 


Discipline  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  Lond.  1694,  ed.  6,  1107.  Gough,  History  of 
the  People  called  Quakers,  4  vols.,  Dubl.  1789.  Thos.  Clarkson ,  Portraiture  of 
Quakerism,  3  vols.,  Lond.  1806.  W.  B.  Wagstaff,  Hist.  Soc.  of  Friends,  Lond.  1855, 
Thos.  Elwood ,  Sacred  Hist.  3,  8vo.,  1778.  NeaVs  Hist.  Puritans,  Supplement  to  vol. 
3.  S.  M.  Janney,  Hist.  Soc.  Friends,  4  vols.,  1828  (1859).  Fothergill ,  Fox,  Sheppard , 
Bowntree,  (prize  essay),  Hancock ,  on  Causes  of  Decline  of  Quakerism,  1859-60.  Comp. 
Westminst.  Rev.  1852,  and  North  Brit.  Rev.  1860.  Summary  of  Hist.  Doctrine  and 
Discipline  of  Friends,  written  at  the  desire  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  in  London, 
3d  ed.  Lond.  1844.  Epistles  of  the  Yearly  Meetings,  1675-1759,  fol.,  Lond.  1760: 
from  1681  to  1817,  Lond.  1818.] 

The  principles  of  the  Quakers  are  in  some  points  allied  with  those 
of  the  Anabaptists  (as  regards  e.  g.  the  relation  of  the  internal  to 
the  external  word,  etc.).  After  the  fire  of  enthusiasm  kindled  by 
George  Fox /  the  founder  of  this  sect,  had  gradually  subsided,  the 
Society  of  Friends,  under  their  leader  William  Penn*  obtained 
(a.  d.  1689)  the  confidence  of  the  English  government.  But  it  was  es¬ 
pecially  in  the  United  States  (Pennsylvania)  that  this  sect  gained 
numerous  adherents,  though  it  also  spread  in  other  countries. 
Robert  Barclay ,  a  Scotchman,  set  forth  their  doctrines,  if  wTe  may 
so  term  them,  in  a  systematic  form,  and  drew  up  a  confession  of 
faith.4 

1  Fox  was  a  shoemaker,  born  in  the  county  of  Leicester,  held  fanatical 
notions,  and  died  1691.  He  founded  the  Society  of  Friends  (to  whom  the 
nickname  Quaker  was  given)  a.  d.  1649,  amid  the  commotions  of  the 
English  revolution.  [Life  of  Fox,  by  J.  S.  Watson ,  Lond.  1860.  Retro¬ 
spective  Rev.,  Aug.  1854.  A  list  of  his  publications  in  Bibl.  Britann. 
Works,  3  fob,  16  94-8.  New  ed.  8  vols.,  Philadelphia.  S.  M.  Janney ,  Life 
of  Fox,  Phil.  1853.] 

2  Penn  was  the  son  of  the  celebrated  admiral  of  the  same  name,  enter¬ 
tained  more  moderate  opinions  than  Fox,  died  a.  d.  1718.  See  the  memoirs 
of  his  life  by  Marsillac ,  Par.  1791,  8,  transl.  into  German,  Strasb.  1793,  8. 
Th.  Clarkson ,  Memoirs  of  the  private  and  public  Life  of  W.  Penn,  Lond. 
1813,  ii.  8.  Morgenblatt,  1816,  Feb.  Nos.,  43-47.  Penn  himself  wrote  :  A 
Summary  of  the  history ,  doctrine  and  discipline  of  Friends.  Ed.  6,  Lond. 
1707,  8,  (transl.  into  German  by  Seebohm,  Pyrmont,  1792.  [Works,  2  fob, 
1726.  No  Cross,  no  Crown,  13th  ed.  Lond.  1789.  W.  H.  Dixon ,  William 
Penn,  an  historical  Biog.,  with  a  chapter  on  the  Macaulay  Charges,  Lond. 
1851,  new  ed.,  1856.  A.  J.  Paget ,  Inquiry  into  Macaulay’s  Charges,  Lond., 
1859.  M.  L.  Vulliemin,  Guillaume  Penn,  Paris,  1856.  Geo.  Bancroft , 
Hist.  United  States,  vol.  ii.,  chap,  xvi.] 

3  Their  first  settlement  in  the  United  States  took  place  a.  d.  1681.  From 
the  year  1686  they  enjoyed  toleration  in  England.  But  it  was  not  till  the 
eighteenth  century  that  they  gained  any  adherents  on  the  Continent  (the 
community  existing  in  Pyrmont  was  founded  1791).  See  Ludw.  Seebohm , 
Kurze  Nachr.  von  dem  Entstehn  und  dem  Forgang  der  christliclien  Gesell- 
"chaft  der  Freunde.  Pyrmont,  1792. 

4  1.  Theologian  vere  Christianae  Apologia.  Amsterdam  1676,  4°.  Ger- 


218 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


man  translations  of  it  appeared  1648,  1740,  8.  2.  Catecliismus  et  Fidei 

Confessio  approbata  et  confirmata  communi  Consensu  et  Consilio  Pa- 
triarcharum,  Prophetarum  et  Apostolorum,  Christo  ipso  inter  eos  prsesi- 
dente  et  prosequente.  Rot.  1676,  8.  It  was  originally  written  in  English, 
(all  made  up  of  Bible  texts).  Collective  edition  of  Barclay’s  works,  by  W. 
Penn,  1692.  [. Robert  Barclay ,  b.  1648,  d.  1690.  See  the  article  in  Alii- 

bone's  Diet,  of  Authors.  His  first  work,  1670,  Truth  cleared  of  Calumnies 
(against  William  Mitchell )  ;  two  other  treatises,  to  1671.  In  1675,  Cat¬ 
echism  and  Confess,  of  Faith ;  Anarchy  of  Ranters,  1676 ;  Universal  Love, 
1677  ;  on  Immediate  Revelation,  1679.  His  chief  work,  An  Apology  for 
the  true  Christ.  Divinity,  1678,  on  the  basis  of  Theses  Theologicae,  previously 
propounded  and  sent  to  all  parts.  This  has  been  frequently  reprinted  and 
translated  into  most  of  the  languages  of  Europe.  '  Against  it,  Thos.  Ben- 
net's  Confutation,  1705,  and  other  English  as  well  foreign  divines;  Arnold,  of 
Franeker,  Baier  of  Jena,  Anton  Reiser,  Barthold  Holzfuss,  Ben.  Figken,  etc.] 


§  237. 

ATTEMPTS  AT  UNION  (SYNCRETISM.) 

C.  W.  Bering,  Geschichte  der  kirchlichen  Unionsvorsucbe,  seit  der  Reformation  bis  auf 
unsere  Zeit.,  Leipz.  1836-38,  ii.  [Comp,  also  §  218,  note  2.]  H.  Schmid,  Gesch.  d 
Synkretist  Streitigkeiten,  Erlang,  1846.  W.  Gass ,  Geo.  Calixt.  u.  der  Synkretismus, 
Breslau,  1846  [and  in  his  Gesch.  d.  Dogmatik,  ii.,  67-216.]  Beppe,  die  alt  Protest. 
Union  (Confessionelle  Entwicklung),  p.  252  sq.  [Gieseler,  iv.,  §  51,  52.  G.  G.  Neu- 
decker,  Die  Hauptversuche  zur  Pacification  der  Evang.  Protest.  Kirche  Deutschlands 
Leipz.  1846.  Benke,  Geo.  Calixtus  und  seine  Zeit,  ii.,  Halle,  1853-60 ;  comp.  Bun- 
deshag  en  in  Stud.  u.  Kritik.,  1856.  Schweizer,  Centraldogmen,  ii.,  532  sq.  Niedner , 
Gesch.  d.  Kirche,  743-7.  Christ.  Remembrancer,  Lond.  1855,  on  Calixt  and  the 
Peace-makers.] 

Though  the  different  religious  parties  were  at  that  time  strongly 
opposed  to  each  other,  there  were,  nevertheless,  attempts  to  effect  a 
union  between  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists1  on  the  one  side,  and 
between  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics  on  the  other.2  These  ef¬ 
forts  tended  to  relax  the  stiffness  of  dogmas,  hut  also  to  emasculate 
what  was  characteristic  in  them.  The  sects,  too,  exerted  a  reacting 
influence  on  the  greater  ecclesiastical  bodies,  since  the  mystics,  who 
still  adhered  to  the  church,  agreed  in  essential  points  with  the  Ana¬ 
baptists  and  Quakers.3  Arminianism  and  even  Socinianism,  so  influ¬ 
enced  sober  common  sense  theologians,  that  they  became  favorable 
to  greater  concessions.4 

1  As  early'as  the  time  of  the  conflicts  to  which  the  Reformation  gave 
rise,  Martin  Bucer  and  Philip  Landgrave  of  Hesse ,  endeavoured  to  allay  the 
demon  of  dissension.  [On  Cassander,  see  Gieseler,  iv.  577  ;  on  Be  Dominis, 
p.  579  ;  Junius ,  p.  580.  In  the  year  1614,  the  Calvinist,  David  Pareus ,  d. 
1622,  took  steps  towards  the  effectual  establishment  of  such  a  union.  His 


§  237.  Attempts  at  Union  (Syncretism.) 


219 


work,  “  Irenicum,”  in  which  he  made  use  of  the  word  Syncretism,  may  be 
regarded  as  the  forerunner  of  the  writings  of  Calixt  on  the  same  subject. 
Comp.  Gass,  in  the  work  quoted  §  218,  Note  2,  p.  8.]  Among  the  Luther¬ 
ans,  Calixt  endeavoured,  in  the  course  of  the  seventeenth  century,  to  recon¬ 
cile  the  separate  parties,  and  thus  gave  rise  to  what  is  called  the  Syncretistic 
controversy ;  among  Calvinists,  John  Durasus ,  a  Scotchman,  labored  from 
the  year  1630  for  the  same  obyect.  [Bury  died  in  1680,  in  Cassel ;  from 
1626  he  was  preacher  to  the  Puritan  Colony  at  Elbing,  in  Prussia;  he  jour¬ 
neyed  widely  for  his  project,  and  wrote  Consultatio  Theologica  super  Negotio 
Pacis  Eccles.,  Lond.,  1641 ;  commented  on  by  Hunnius,  1641.  For  the 
other  works  of  Dury,  see  Gieseler,  iv.,  §  51,  Note  28.  See  Berzelius ,  Comm. 
Hist.  Theol.  de  J.  Duraeo,  cum  Prsef.  J.  L.  Moshemii ,  Helmst.  1744. 
Bishop  Hall  was  influenced  by  Dury  to  write  his  Pax  Terris,  in  Duraei 
Irenicorum  Tractat.  Prodromus :  and  Bishop  Bavenant ,  De  Pace  inter  Evange- 
licos,  Lond.  1638.]  The  Conference  of  Leipsic,  a.  d.  1631.  The  Confer¬ 
ence  of  Thorn,  1648.  (Colloquium  charitativum.)  [The  Consensus  Sando- 
miriensis  ;  see  the  “Historical  Account  of  the  Consensus  Sandomiriensis,  or 
Agreement  of  Sandomir,  formed  among  the  three  orthodox  bodies  of  Protest¬ 
ants  in  Poland,  in  the  year  1570,”  in  the  Continental  Echo,  for  1846,  p.  84 
ss.  110  ss.  139  ss.  Hugo  Grotius,  Yotum  pro  Pace  Ecclesiastica,  1642.  Ni¬ 
colas  Hunnius ,  project  of  a  Collegium  Ireuicum  of  ten  or  twelve  thelogians, 
1632  ;  see  Niedner ,  779.] 

2  Bossuet  (see  §  227,  Note  14).  Rouas  (Roxas)  de  Spinola  (bishop  of 
Tina  in  Croatia  from  the  year  1668,  and  bishop  of  Wienerisch-Neustadt  from 
the  year  1685  ;  he  died  1695)  entered  into  negotiations  with  Molanus ,  abbot 
of  Loccum  in  Hanover.  Leibnitz  took  part  in  the  negotiations.  [ Molanus 
was  overseer  of  church  affairs  in  Brunswick  and  Hanover;  his  project,  Regu¬ 
lar  circa  Christianorum  omnium  ecclesiasticum  Reunionem,  was  published  in 
1691 ;  his  Cogitationes  Privatae,  on  the  basis  of  Cassander,  Grotius  and  Spi¬ 
nola,  1691.  Bossuet  wrote  De  Scripto  cui  titulus  “Cogit.  Privat.”  Episcopi 
Meldensis,  1692;  Molanus,  Explicatio  Ulterior,  1692.  Leibnitz,  Correspon¬ 
dence  with  Paul  Pelisson,  Mdme.  de  Brinon  and  Bossuet,  1691-4,  1699- 
1701,  (Opera  ed.  Duten,  i.,  507-537  ;  see  also  CEuvres  de  Leibnitz,  publiees 
pour  la  premiere  fois  d’apres  les  manuscrits  originaux,  par  A.  Foucher  de  Ca- 
reil,  Paris,  Tomes  i.  ii.,  1859-60;  and  comp.  Ch.  de  Remusat,  Leibnitz  et  Bos¬ 
suet,  in  Rev.  des  deux  Mondes,  Jan.  1861.)  Systema  theologicum  Leibnitii 
(making  large  concessions  to  the  Catholics),  after  the  Paris  manuscript  first 
ed.  in  French  by  Eymery  (Exposition  de  la  Doctrine  de  Leibnitz),  Paris,  1815 ; 
German  version  By  Rass  and  Weiss,  Mainz,  1820  ;  Latin  and  German  by  C. 
Haas,  Tubing.  1860.  Comp.  Schulze,  Ueber  die  Entdeckung  dass  L.  Katho- 
lik  gewesen,  Getting.  1827.  Guhrauer,  Leibnitz  Deutsche  Schriften,  1837,  ii. 
Appendix,  65-80.] 

3  Especially  in  the  doctrines  concerning  internal  revelation,  justification, 
etc.,  (thus  they  contributed,  at  least  to  modify,  the  direct  opposition  to  the 
Romish  Church). 

4  Comp.  §  235,  note  7. 


220 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


§  238. 

INFLUENCE  OF  PHILOSOPHY.  DEISM.  APOLOGETICS. 

John  Leland ,  a  View  of  the  principal  deistical  writers  that  have  appeared  in  England  in 
the  last  and  present  century,  1754,  ii.  voll.,  [5th  ed.  1766;  new  ed.,  Appendix  by 
W.  L.  Brown ,  and  Introduction  by  C.  R.  Edmonds ,  Lond.  1837.]  Thorschmid,  Frei- 
denkerbiblothek.  Halle,  1765-67.  Herder ,  Adrastea  (Werke  Zur  Philosophie  und 
G-eschicte,  ix.)  *Gotth.  Viet.  Lechler ,  Geschichte  des  englischen  Deismus,  Stuttg. 
1841.  Carriere ,  Die  philos.  Weltanshauung  der  Reform ationszeit.  Stuttg.  1847.  0. 
Hagen ,  Der  Geist  der  Reformation  und  seine  Gegensatze,  ii.  Erlang,  1843-4.  [Mark 
Pattison ,  Tendencies  of  Religious  Thought  in  England,  in  Essays  and  Reviews,  1860, 
pp.  279-362.] 

And  lastly,  the  religious  parties,  though  divided  on  so  many 
points,  could  make  common  cause  in  the  contest  for  Christianity  in 
general,  against  a  tendency  which  either  renounced  the  positive  au¬ 
thority  of  revelation,  or  threatened  it  in  essential  relations.  As  early 
as  the  century  of  the  Deformation,  a  theory  of  the  universe  was  es¬ 
poused,  now  in  a  deistic,  and  again  in  a  pantheistic  form,  especially 
in  Italy,  which  threatened  to  become  dangerous  to  the  Christian 
faith  in  a  revelation,  as  held  by  Koman  Catholics  as  well  as  Protest¬ 
ants.1  Theological  science,  however,  was  for  the  most  part  unaf¬ 
fected  by  these  tendencies,  and  even  the  systems  of  the  schools  of 
the  seventeenth  century  which  attained  a  more  definite  shape,  had, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Cartesian  philosophy,  no  particular  influ¬ 
ence  upon  the  shaping  of  the  Christian  dogma,  toward  which  they  as¬ 
sumed  as  far  as  possible  the  attitude  of  neutrality.*  Towards  the  end 
of  the  period  (making  the  transition  to  the  next)  a  popular  form  of 
philosophy,  the  so-called  philosophy  of  common  sense,  made  open 
war  against  the  Christian  system.  Its  advocates  are  generally 
known  under  the  name  of  F reethinkers,  Deists  or  Naturalists.  Aim¬ 
ing  at  practical  results,  with  bold  and  hasty  judgments,  they  de¬ 
clared  war  against  the  belief  in  revelation  adopted  by  all  the 
confessions,3  and  thus  called  the  slumbering  apologists  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Church  to  re-enter  the  lists.4 

1  u  In  the  history  of  the  world  there  are  four  successive  periods ,  in  which 
open  unbelief  and  unconcealed  enmity  to  Christianity ,  went  the  rounds  (so  to 
speak )  among  the  chief  nations  of  Europe .  These  tendencies  originated  in  the 
higher  spheres  of  society ,  and  pressed  down  into  the  middle  class ,  and  were 
cherished  and  extolled  in  both  as  the  height  of  culture.  Italy  made  the  begird¬ 
ing  in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  century  •  England  and  France  followed  in 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  ;  the  series  closes  in  Germany  in  the  nineteenth  I 
Der  deutsche  Protestantismus,  s.  53. — Among  the  philosophers  of  Italy,  the 
most  noted  were,  Girolamo  Cerdano ,  born  1501,  died  1576  ;  Bernardino 


§  238.  Influence  of  Philosophy.  Deism.  Apologetics.  221 


Telesio,  b.  1508,  died  1588,  “  the  forerunner  of  the  French  sensualism 
Giordano  Bruno ,  burnt  at  Rome,  Feb.  1 7,  1600.  Julius  Caesar  Vanini , 
born  1585,  executed  “  as  an  atheist  and  blasphemer,”  at  Toulouse,  Feb.  9, 
1619;  Tomaso  Campanella ,  b.  1508,  d.  1639.  The  position  assumed  by 
these  men  towards  Christianity  was,  however,  different  in  different  instances  ; 
some  of  them  retained  its  positive,  particularly  its  mystical,  elements ; 
others,  Yanini  in  particular,  were  skeptical  even  to  blasphemy.  See 
Carriere ,  ubi  supra.  [Comp.  H.  Ritter ,  Die  Christl.  Philos.  Bd.  ii.  s.  119- 
146.  Bruno ,  in  Eel.  Mag.,  vol.  17.] 

2  Cartesianism ,  almost  alone,  exerted  a  more  direct  influence  upon  the 
theology  of  the  present  period,  and,  in  the  first  instance,  only  upon  that 
of  the  Reformed  Church  (see  §  225,  note  1) ;  Malebranche ,  however, 
introduced  this  philosophy  also  into  the  theology  of  the  Romish  Church. 
[Comp.  Bouillier ,  La  Philos.  Cartesienne,  2  Tom.,  Paris,  1854.  Kuno 
Fischer,  Gesch.  d.  neueren  Philos,  i.  1855.]  Spinoza  (born  a.  d.  1632,  died 
1617),  a  man  of  elevated  character,  stood  aloof  from  all  ecclesiastical  con¬ 
nections,  on  which  account  the  theologians  of  his  age  took  no  notice  of  him. 
It  was  not  till  after  his  death  that  the  speculative  writers  on  Christian 
theology  turned  their  attention  to  his  system.  [On  Spinoza,  see  the  histories 
of  philosophy  by  Ritter ,  Hegel,  K.  Fischer ,  Erdmann,  Feuerbach,  and 
others.  Saintes,  Historie  de  la  Yie  et  des  Ouvrages  de  Spinoza,  2  vols., 
Paris,  1842.  Orelli,  Leben  und  Lehre  des  Spinoza,  1843,  2d  ed.,  1850. 
CEuvres,  traduits  par  E.  Saisset ,  nouvelle  ed.,  Paris,  1861. — The  discussion 
between  Schelling  and  Jacobi  (1785),  revived  the  interest  in  his  system. — 
Trendelenburg,  Spinoza’s  Grundgedanken,  1850.  Bouillier,  in  his  Hist,  de 
la  Philos.,  Cartesienne,  1854,  vol.  i.,  300-409. — Keller,  Spinoza  und  Leibnitz, 
Erlang.,  1847.  Helfferich ,  Spinoza  und  Leibnitz,  1846.  A  tract  attributed 
to  Leibnitz,  Refutation  of  Spinoza,  was  published  by  Foucher  de  Careil, 
1854,  from  a  MS.  in  the  Hanover  library,  transl.  into  English,  Lond.,  1855. 
Articles  in  Westminster  Review,  vol.  39  (by  Lewes)  ;  and  July,  1855  ;  in 
Southern  Qu.  Rev.,  vol.  xii.  See  also  letters  between  Ripley  and  Norton,  on 
Latest  Form  of  Infidelity,  Bost.,  1840  ;  Letter  Second,  on  Spinoza.] — Locke 
born  a.  d.  1632,  died  1704)  promoted  the  interests  of  the  empirical  system, 
which  was  first  established  by  Francis  Bacon  of  Yerulam  (who  died  a.  d. 
1626),  and  in  its  turn  contributed  to  the  development  of  Deism  (though 
counter  to  the  intentions  of  its  author). — \E.  Tagart,  Locke’s  Life  and  Writ¬ 
ings,  historically  considered,  and  vindicated  from  the  charge  of  contributing 
to  the  skepticism  of  Hume  Lond.,  1855.  Thos.  E.  Webb,  Intellectualism  of 
Locke,  Lond.,  1857.  B.  H.  Smart,  Thoughts  and  Language,  a  Revival  of 
Locke’s  Philosophy,  Lond.,  1855.  E.  Scharer,  John  Locke,  seine  Yers- 
tandestheorie,  etc.,  Leipz.,  1860.  V.  Cousin,  Psychology,  transl.  by  C.  S. 
Henry  (Cousin’s  Criticism  of  Locke,  in  his  Lecture  on  Hist.  Philos.),  1848. 
1859  ;  Comp.  President  Day  in  Christ.  Quart.  Spect.,  vol.  vii.  Other  arti¬ 
cles  in  British  Quart.,  v. ;  Christ.  Exam.  ( Eowen ),  xxiii. ;  Edinb.  Rev.,  1854. 
Dugald  St uart's  Philos.  Essays,  1  and  3,  in  Works,  vol.  iv.] — Leibnitz  (born 
1646,  died  1716)  interested  himself  much  in  theology,  as  may  be  seen  from 
his  work  on  Theodicy  (comp.  §  261,  note  7),  and  the  part  he  took  in  the 
attempts  at  union  (see  §  237,  note  2.)  \Guhrauer,  Leben  Leibnitz,  2te., 


222 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Ausg.,  1846  ;  abridged  transl.,  Boston,  1840.  Zimmermann ,  L.’s  Mo- 
nadologie,  1847.  La  Philosophie  de  Leibnitz,  par  Nourrisson ,  Paris, 
1860.  Kuno  Fischer ,  Leibnitz  n.  seine  Schule,  2d  vol.  of  Gesch.  d. 
neneren  Philos.,  Mannheim,  1855.  Articles  on  Leibnitz  in  North  British, 
vol.  5  ;  Edinburgh  Rev.,  vol.  84;  Gent.  Mag.  ( Harwell ),  1852.]  But  it 
was  not  till  Wolf  remodeled  his  philosophy  (in  the  following  period), 
that  it  attracted  the  attention  of  theologians,  and  was  introduced  into  their 
writings. 

3  Concerning  the  vagueness  of  these  appellations,  see  Herder ,  1.  c.  pp. 
174,  175.  Lechler ,  p.  452,  ss.*  The  so-called  Deists  differed  widely 
among  themselves  in  character,  spirit,  and  sentiments, f  and  an  equal  dif¬ 
ference  may  be  observed  in  the  relation  in  which  their  systems  stand, 
both  to  each  other  and  to  Christianity.  The  Deism  of  England  can  only  be 
explained  in  connection  with  the  history  of  the  English  Reformation,  and 
the  conflicts  to  which  it  gave  rise.  Among  its  promoters,  in  addition  to  the 
sect  of  the  Seekers  and  Rationalists  ( Lechler ,  p.  61,  note),  were  the  follow¬ 
ing  writers  :  Herbert  of  Cherbury  (died  1648),  Thomas  Hobbes  (born  1588, 
d.  1679,  at  the  age  of  91),  Charles  Blount  (died  1693),  John  Toland  (died 
1722),  Anthony  Collins  (died  1729),  Anthony  Ashley  Cooper  (Earl  of 
Shaftesbury ,  died  1713),  Thomas  Woolston  (died  1733),  Matthew  Tindal 
(died  1733),  Thomas  Chubb  (an  illiterate  person ,  a  glover  and  chandler, 
died  1747),  and  several  others  who  lived  in  the  following  period.  [See 
§  238,  a.] — In  France,  Jean  Bodin  (died  1596,  author  of  the  Heptaplomeres, 
published  anew  by  Guhrauer,  1841).  Michael  de  Montaigne  [died  1592  ; 
his  Essais,  published  by  H Angelier,  Paris,  1595 ;  best  edition  by  Pierre 
Coste ,  3,  4to.,  Lond.,  1724;  complete  works,  transl.  byHazlitt,  Lond.,  1840]; 
and  Pierre  Charron  [his  work  of  Wisdom,  transl.  by  Geo.  Stanhope ,  2d  ed., 
2  vols.,  Lond.,  1707]  (died  1603),  manifested  a  sceptical  tendency;  in  later 
times,  Pierre  Bayle  (died  1706)  prepared  the  way  for  French  Naturalism; 
concerning  him  see  L.  Feuerbach ,  Pierre  Bayle,  Anspach,  1838.  [Bayle’s 
Diet,  transl.  into  English,  1710,  4  vols.,  fob,  1710;  5  fob,  1734-7;  im¬ 
proved  in  the  General  Dictionary,  10  fob,  1741.]  In  Germany,  Matthias 
Knutsen  (who  lived  about  the  year  1674)  founded  the  sect  of  the  “Gewis- 
sener,”  Conscientiarii.  [F'.  W.  S torch,  died  1704,  De  Concordia  Rat.  et 
Fidei.  J.  K.  JBippel ,  died  1734,  Christ.  Democritus.  J.  L .  Schmidt ,  died 
1740,  transl.  Toland  into  German.] 

4  Grotius  composed  his  apologetical  work  (§  235,  note  4)  without  refer¬ 
ence  to  Deism.  Robert  Boyle  (1638)  endowed  a  series  of  lectures  for  the 
special  purpose  of  opposing  the  English  Deists*  Among  the  English  apol¬ 
ogists,  the  most  distinguished  were  Richard  Baxter  (died  1691),  William 

*  The  term  “Deism,”  in  particular,  is  not  to  be- confounded  with  the  same  term  as 
used  by  philosophers  in  distinction  from  Theism ;  for  even  Pantheism  could  ally  itself 
with  this  tendency  in  its  denial  of  Revelation. 

j-  The  author  of  the  work  Der  Deutsche  Protestantismus,  justly  calls  attention  to  the 
preponderance  of  an  idealistic  and  spiritualising  philosophy,  as  a  characteristic  of  the 
English  Deism,  and  to  its  honorable  moral  earnestness,  in  contrast  with  the  frivolity  of 
the  later  French  materialism. 


§  238,  a.  The  English  Deism. 


223 


SherlocJc  (died  1707),  and  others.  On  their  polemical  writings,  in  refutation 
of  the  Deists,  see  Lechler,  1.  c. ;  [see  the  next  section].  Among  the  French 
apologists  we  may  mention  Pascal  (see  §  228,  note  6),  and  Abbadie ,  a 
member  of  the  Reformed  Church  (died  1727),  who  wrote:  Traite  de  la  Ve- 
rite  de  la  Religion  Chretienne.  Rotterd.  1684. 


§  238,  a. 

[THE  ENGLISH  DEISM.] 

[Bp.  W.  Van  Mildert,  Rise  and  Progress  of  Infidelity;  Boyle  Lectures,  1802-4,  2  vols., 

Oxf.,  1838.] 

[Rationalism,  in  the  form  of  Deism,  was  first  systematically  set  forth 
in  England.  Its  fundamental  principle  was,  that  reason  is  the  source 
and  measure  of  truth.  Of  Christianity,  it  adopted  only  those  truths 
which  could  be  considered  as  a  product  or  republication  of  the  light 
of  nature  ;  rejecting  all  that  was  miraculous,  supernatural,  or  mys¬ 
terious.  Acknowledging  a  God,  it  denied  a  specific  revelation.  This 
tendency  was  evoked  and  stimulated  in  England  not  only  by  the 
conflicts  of  religious  parties,  and  the  prevalent  freedom  of  thought 
and  inquiry,  hut  also  by  the  force  of  reaction  against  the  high 
church  claims  of  the  supremacy  of  a  merely  external  authority, 
and  by  the  progress  of  the  empirical  philosophy,  as  represented  by 
some  of  the  interpreters  of  Bacon 1  and  Locke 2  and  in  the  writings  of 
Hobbes.3  The  first  of  the  avowed  Deists  was  Edward  Herbert , 
Lordj  Cherbury ,4  who  reduced  religion  to  the  most  general  truths  of  a 
system  of  natural  ethics.  Charles  Blount ,6  was  a  follower  of  Hobbes. 
Locke's  thesis  of  the  Reasonableness  of  Christianity  was  perverted 
by  John  Poland 6  into  the  position  that  Christianity  is  not  mysteri¬ 
ous,  admitting  in  the  New  Testament  only  what  is  comprehensible 
by  reason.  Anthony  Collins ,7  continued  the  warfare  in  his  Discourse 
on  Free  Thinking  (1713),  and  his  Discourse  on  the  Grounds  and 
Reasons  of  the  Christian  Religion  (1725),  to  which  thirty-five  replies 
were  published.  Thomas  Woolston 8  attacked  the  Miracles  of  the 
Scripture  (1727-30.)  At  the  close  of  this  period  Matthew  TindaV 
gave  a  summary  of  the  principles  of  Deism,  in  his  Christianity  as 
old  as  the  Creation  ;  or,  the  Gospel  a  Republication  of  the  Religion 
of  Nature.  Somewhat  later  Thomas  Chubb ,  and  Thomas  Morgan 
continued  the  succession  of  deistic  writers,10  which  ended  with  Lord 
Bolingbroke  (see  §  275).  Deism  passed  over  into  skepticism,  the 
moral  principles  of  the  school  were  represented  in  a  more  refined 
form  by  Anthony  Ashley  Cooper ,n  Earl  of  Shaftsbury,  and  in  a 
grosser  manner  by  Mandeville ,12  in  his  Fable  of  the  Bees,  pre¬ 
sented  as  a  nuisance  by  the  grand  jury  in  1723.] 


224 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


[Among  the  ablest  defenders  of  the  Christian  system  against  these 
assaults  were,  Richard  Bentley  in  his  Boyle  Lectures,  and  in  his  re¬ 
ply  to  Collins  ;  Richard  Baxter ,  8.  Clarke ,  Sherlock ,  in  reply  to 
Woolston;  the  dissenter,  James  Foster ,13  and  Bishop  Stillingjleet; 
Bishop  Butler  in  his  admirable  Analogy,  and  many  others.14] 

1  [j Francis  Bacon ,  Baron  of  Verulam,  b.  1561,  d.  1626.  Works  by 
Basil  Montagu ,  16  vols.,  Lond.,  1825-34  ;  new  edition  by  Spedding  and 
Ellis,  Lond.,  1857,  sq.,  reprinted,  Boston,  1860,  sq.  (The  Advancement  of 
Learning,  1605  ;  Essays,  1597-1624  ;  Novum  Organum,  1620  ;  I)e  Aug¬ 
ments  Scient.,  1623).  Comp.  Chs.  de  Remusat ,  Bacon,  sa  Vie,  sa  Philoso¬ 
phic,  etc.,  Paris,  1857.  Kuno  Fischer,  Franz  B.  von  Verulam;  die  Real- 
philosophie,  Leipz.,  1856,  transl.  by  Oxenford ,  Lond.,  1857.  G.  L.  Craik, 
Bacon  and  his  writings,  new  ed.,  1860.  W.  H.  Dixon,  Personal  Ilist.  of 
Lord  B.,  Lond.  and  Bost.,  1860.  De  Maistre,  Bacon,  2  vols.,  Paris. — The 
philosophy  of  Bacon  was  expounded  by  the  French  school,  in  a  spirit  for¬ 
eign  to  that  of  its  author,  applying  its  principles  of  induction  to  the  super¬ 
natural  as  well  as  the  natural  sphere.  Bacon  made  a  broad  distinction 
between  the  two,  and  he  himself  believed  in  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
Christian  faith  ;  see  his  Literary  and  Professional  Works,  vol.  2.  His  real 
spirit  is  expressed  in  the  petition  contained  in  the  Preface  to  the  Instauratio 
Magna :  “  We  suppliantly  beseech,  that  things  human  may  not  injure  things 
divine  ;  and  that  nothing  of  darkness  and  unbelief,  with  reference  to  the 
divine  mysteries,  may  arise  in  our  minds  from  the  unlocking  of  the  road  for 
the  senses,  and  the  greater  enkindling  of  natural  light.”] 

3  [ John  Locke,  b.  1632,  d.  1704.  Works,  3  fob,  1714,  and  often;  10th 
ed.,  Lond.,  10  vols.,  1801.  Life,  by  Lord  King,  2d  ed.,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1830. 
The  principles  of  his  Essay  on  the  Human  Understanding,  were  opposed  by 
bp.  Stillingfleet,  1697-99.  His  Reasonableness  of  Christianity  gave  the  tone 
to  the  apologetic  literature  of  the  period.  Comp.  §  237,  note  2.] 

3  \Thomas  Hobbes,  of  Malmsbury,  b.  1588,  d.  1679.  Works  by  Sir  Wm. 
Molesworth,  16  vols.,  Lond.,  1839-55.  (Leviathan,  1651  ;  Tripos;  on  Lib¬ 
erty  and  Necessity,  1654).  He  was  opposed  by  Cud  worth,  in  his  Intel. 
System ;  by  Cumberland,  Be  Legibus  Naturae  ;  by  Barker,  Be  Beo ;  by 
bp.  Bramhall,  on  Necessity,  and  Catching  the  Leviathan,  1658;  by  abp. 
Tenison,  1670  ;  by  Lord  Clarendon,  in  his  Survey  of  the  Leviathan.  Though 
reckoned  among  the  deists,  his  principles  subverted  the  basis  of  morality  as 
well  as  religion,  substituting  external  authority  for  moral  obligation.  For 
the  literature  of  his  controversies,  etc.  see  Allibone,  Bict.  of  Authors. 
Hobbes ,  Lehre  liber  Staat  u.  Kirche,  by  Bister,  in  Beutsche  Zeitschrift, 
Aug.,  1855.] 

4  [ Edward  Herbert,  Lord  Cherbury,  b.  1851,  d.  1648.  Be  Veritate,  Paris, 
1624,  Lond.,  1633.  Be  Religione  Gentilium,  Amst.,  1663,  in  English,  Lond., 
1704.  Life,  written  by  himself,  1764.  He  reduced  the  truths  of  natural 
religion  to  five  points:  1.  Being  of  God;  2.  Buty  of  Worship;  3.  Virtue 
and  piety ;  4.  Repentance ;  5.  Retribution  in  this  world  and  the  next.  He 
was  answered  by  Locke,  Baxter,  Gassendi,  Halyburton,  Leland  /  and  by 


§  238,  a.  The  English  Deism.  225 

Kortholt ,  De  tribus  impostoribus  (Herbert,  Hobbes,  and  Spinoza),  Hamb., 
1701.] 

3  [ Charles  Blount,  b.  1654,  committed  suicide  1693.  Anima  Mundi, 
1679;  Religio  Laici ;  Oracles  of  Reason,  1695.  Life  of  Apollonius  of 
Tyana,  fob,  Lond.,  1680  ;  a  French  version,  1775,  4  vols.,  Berlin.  Replies 
by  Nicholls ,  Conference  with  a  Theist,  2  vols.,  3d  ed.,  1723  ;  Van  Milder  t's 
Boyle  Lectures.] 

6  [ John  Toland,  of  Ireland,  b.  1669,  d.  1722.  Christ,  not  Mysterious, 
Lond.,  1696  ;  an  Apology  for  Mr.  T.  by  himself,  written  the  day  before  his 
book  was  resolved  to  be  burnt  by  the  Committee  of  Religion,  1697 ;  Naza- 
renus,  or  Jewish,  Gentile,  and  Mohamed.  Christianity,  2d  ed,  1718;  Collec¬ 
tion  of  Pieces,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1726.  His  Amyntor,  or  Defence  of  Milton’s 
Life,  1699,  was  also  designed  to  show  that  the  canon  of  the  New  Test,  is 
uncertain;  replied  to  by  Samuel  Clarice,  1699,  in  Richardson's  canon 
of  New  Test.,  and  in  Jones'  New  and  Full  Method  of  settling  the  Canonical 
Authority,  1726,  2,  8vo.,  a  3d  vol.,  1727.  His  Christ,  not  Mysterious  was 
answered  by  John  Morris,  abp.  Synge,  of  Tuam,  and  bp.  Browne,  of  Cork. 
His  Adeisidsemon  sive  Titus  Livius,  and  Origines  Judaicae,  were  published  at 
the  Hague,  1709,  and  answered  by  La  Fare,  of  Utrecht,  in  his  Defensio 
Religionis,  1709,  and  Benoit,  of  Delft,  in  his  Melanges  de  Remarques  criti¬ 
ques,  etc.,  1712.] 

7  [Anthony  Collins,  b.  1676,  d.  1729:  Essay  on  the  Use  of  Reason, 
1707;  on  Immortality,  in  the  Dodwell  Controversy,  1707-8  ;  Priestcraft 
in  Perfection,  1710  ;  History  of  XXXIX.  Articles,  1724  ( Bennett's  Essay 
in  reply  to  the  former  book,  1815);  Vindication  of  the  Divine  Attri¬ 
butes,  1710;  Discourse  on  Freethinking,  1713 — a  French  version,  much 
altered,  at  the  Hague,  1 714.  His  work  was  replied  to  most  conclusively  by 
Dr.  Bentley,  in  his  Remarks  upon  a  late  Discourse  on  Freethinking,  by 
Philaleutherus  Lipsiensis,  1713,  1719,  1743,  transl.  into  several  tongues. 
Collins’  Inquiry  Concerning  Liberty  and  Necessity,  1715-17  (in  French,  by 
Des  Maizeaux,  2  vols.,  1720).  His  discourse  of  the  Ground  and  Reason  of 
the  Christ.  Religion,  1724.  This  work  was  occasioned  by  Whiston’s  work 
on  Prophecy,  and  Collins  takes  the  ground,  that  prophecy  is  the  principal 
evidence,  but  that  no  prophecy  can  be  proved  except  by  allegorical  interpre¬ 
tations.  His  Scheme  of  Literal  Prophecy,  in  defence,  was  published  in  1727. 
This  attack  on  prophecy  made  a  great  noise.  In  reply,  bishop  Chandler , 
1725,  A  Defence  of  Christ,  from  the  Prophecies;  Samuel  Chandler ,  Vin¬ 
dication,  1725  ;  Sykes,  on  the  Truth  of  Christ.  Religion,  1725  ;  Whiston , 
Supplement  to  the  Literal  Accomplishment,  1725  ;  Thos.  Sherlock,  Use  and 
Intent  of  Prophecy ;  Moses  Bowman,  Argument  from  Prophecy,  1733; 
Review  of  the  Controversy,  by  Thos.  Jeffrey,  1726,  who  also  wrote  Christ, 
the  Perfection  of  all  Religion,  1728.] 

8  [Thomas  Woolston,  b.  1669,  d.  1733,  next  attacked  the  miracles,  in  his 
Discourses  on  the  Miracles,  1727,  for  which  he  was  sentenced  to  a  year’s 
imprisonment  and  a  fine  of  one  hundred  pounds ;  the  work  reached  a  6th 
ed.,  1729  ;  Defence,  2  Parts,  1729-30.  He  zealously  advocated  the  alle¬ 
gorical  interpretation,  in  opposition  “  to  the  ministry  of  the  letter.”  Some 
twenty  replies  were  published  :  bishop  Pearce,  of  Rochester,  Miracles  Vind., 


226 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


1729  ;  bp.  Smalbrook ,  Vindication,  2  vols. ;  Lardner's  Vind.  of  Three  Mira- 
cles,  1729  ;  particularly  bp.  Sherlock ,  Trial  of  the  Witnesses  of  the  Resur¬ 
rection,  1729,  14  editions  published  (the  French  author,  Peter  Annet, 
attacked  this  15  years  afterwards) ;  Stackhouse ,  State  of  the  Controversy, 
1730.] 

9  [. Matthew  Tindal,  b.  1657,  d.  1733  ;  Rights  of  Christ.  Church,  and  De¬ 
fence,  1706-9;  his  Christ  as  Old  as  the  Creation  was  published  when  he 
was  73  years  old,  in  1730,  the  ablest  work  in  vindication  of  the  perfection 
of  natural  religion.  In  reply,  bp.  J.  Conybeare,  Defence  of  Revealed  Relig¬ 
ion,  1732;  Thos.  Burnet ,  Conferences;  Waterland ,  Script.  Vindicated; 
Law’s  Case  of  Natural  Religion ;  also  Stebbing ,  Balguy ,  Foster  (see  be¬ 
low),  and  others.  One  of  the  ablest  of  these  was  John  LelancVs  Answer, 
2  vols.,  Dublin,  1733,  Lond.,  1740.] 

10  [ Thos .  Morgan ,  d.  1743  ;  his  chief  work  was,  The  Moral  Philosopher,  3 
vols.,  Lond.,  1737,  2d  ed.,  1738,  and  Defence,  in  professed  opposition  to 
“  Judaistic  Christianity  ;”  in  reply,  J.  Chapman ,  Eusebius,  the  True  Chris¬ 
tian’s  Defence,  1739  ;  Leland ,  Divine  Authority  of  Old  and  New  Test.,  1739  ; 
Bowman ,  on  Civil  Government  of  Hebrews,  1740.  The  controversy  was  con¬ 
tinued  by  the  deistic  tract  Christianity  not  founded  in  Argument — replies  by 
Benson  and  Randolph; and  by  another  tract  on  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus, 
answered  by  West  and  Littleton  (see  Leland1  s  Deistical  Writers,  i.  Letters, 
xi.  xii.) — Thomas  Chubb ,  b.  1679,  d.  1747  ;  the  Previous  Question  with  re¬ 
gard  to  Religion,  1725;  Three  Facts,  1727  ;  Reason  and  Religion,  1731; 
Posthumous  Works,  6  vols.,  1754,  etc.] 

11  [The  Earl  of  Shaftesbury,  b.  1671,  d.  1713.  The  Moralist,  1709; 
Sensus  Communis,  1710.  His  Characteristics,  3  vols.,  1711-23,  are  intended 
to  exalt  virtue  at  the  expense  of  revealed  religion,  making  virtue  its  own 
reward,  needing  no  religious  sanctions.  John  Brown,  Essays  on  the  Char¬ 
acteristics,  1750  ;  see  also  Mackintosh,  Progress  of  Ethical  Science,  Memoirs 
of  Shaftesbury,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  I860.] 

12  [. Bernard  Mandeville,b.  in  Holland,  1670,  removed  to  England,  d.  1733. 
The  Fable  of  the  Bees ;  or,  Private  Vices  Public  Benefits,  2  vols.,  Lond., 
1714.  William  Law's  Remarks  on  the  Fable  of  the  Bees,  with  an  Introd. 
by  F.  J).  Maurice,  Cambr.,  1844.  Bishop  Berkeley's  Minute  Philosopher, 
written  in  Newport,  R.  I.,  and  published  1732,  was  intended  as  a  reply  to 
Mandeville,  whose  opinions  are  there  represented  by  Ly sides 

13  [Hon.  Robert  Boyle,  son  of  Earl  of  Cork,  b.  1626,  d.  1691.  Works, 
C  vols.,  4to.  Lond.,  1772,  with  Life  by  T.  Bird.  The  Boyle  Lecture  Sermons 
were  founded  “  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  Christian  Religion  against  infidels, 
without  descending  to  any  controversies  among  Christians.”  A  collection, 
from  1691  to  1732  was  published  in  1739,  in  3  vols.,  folio.  Richard  Bent¬ 
ley  (b.  1661,  Regius  Prof.  Divin.,  Cambridge,  1 716,  d.  1742),  gave  the  first 
course,  a  Confutation  of  Atheism ;  for  his  work  against  Collins,  see  Note  7, 
above;  Bentley’s  works,  by  A.  Dyce ,  3  vols.,  1856;  life  by  Bishop  Monk , 
Lond.,  1830  ;  Correspondence,  2  vols.,  1842.  Samuel  Clarke's  Demonstra¬ 
tion  of  Being  and  Attributes  of  God,  and  his  Sermons  on  Natural  Religion 
were  the  Boyle  Lectures  for  1704-5  ;  he  also  wrote  in  reply  to  Dodwell  on 
Immortality,  and  to  Toland’s  Amyntor. —  W.  Whiston,  wrote  in  the  same 


§  238,  a.  The  English  Deism. 


227 


series,  1707,  on  Scripture  Prophecy. — Richard  Baxter  wrote  on  the  Unrea¬ 
sonableness  of  Infidelity,  and  on  Reasons  for  Christian  Religion,  against  Her¬ 
bert,  etc.  (Works,  vols.  20,  21). — James  Foster ,  b.  1697,  d.  1753,  published 
an  able  Defence  of  the  Christian  Religion,  against  Tindal;  3d  ed.,  1734. — 
On  Clarke,  see  §  225,  b.,  Note  51 ;  on  Sherlock ,  ib.,  Note  24 ;  on  Whiston, 
ib.,  Note  52.] 

13  [On  Stilling  fleet,  comp.  §  225,  b.,  Note  24;  his  Origines  Sacrse,  or  Rational 
Account  of  the  Grounds  of  the  Christian  Religion,  was  publ.  fob,  Cambr., 
1701  ;  2,  8vo.,  Oxf.,  1837. — Joseph  Butler,  bp.  of  Durham,  b.  at  Wantage, 
Berkshire,  1692,  Preacher  at  the  Rolls,  1 71 8,  Bp.  of  Bristol,  1738,  and  of 
Durham,  1746,  d.  1752.  Works,  new  ed.,  Oxford,  2  vols.,  1837, 1849,  New 
York,  1844  ;  with  Life  by  Samuel  Halifax,  Bp.  of  Gloucester.  His  Analogy 
of  Religion,  Natural  and  Revealed,  to  the  Constitution  and  Course  of  Nature, 
was  published  in  1733 — rebutting  the  deistical  arguments  against  revealed 
religion  by  their  own  concessions  about  natural  religion.  His  correspon¬ 
dence,  at  the  age  of  nineteen,  with  Dr.  Clarke,  on  some  of  Clarke’s  argu¬ 
ments  for  the  Being  of  God,  exhibited  great  acuteness.  His  Sermons  on 
Human  Nature  were  said  by  Dr.  Chalmers,  to  be  “  the  most  precious  reposi¬ 
tory  of  sound  ethical  principles  extant  in  any  language.”  The  Analogy  has 
been  frequently  edited  ;  in  England  by  bp.  Wilson ,  7th  ed.  1846,  Wilkin¬ 
son,  1847,  Angus,  1855,  Steere,  1857  ;  in  America  by  bp.  Hobart,  Tefft, 
Albert  Barnes,  Emory  and  Crooks,  Malcolm .  Among  the  other  writers  in 
this  controversy  were  Whitby,  Necessity  of  the  Christian  Religion  (against 
Herbert),  Lond.,  1 7 05  ;  Thos.  Halyburton ,  (b.  1674,  Prof.  Div.  St.  Andrews, 
1710,  d.  1712),  Natural  Religion  Insufficient,  1714,  against  Herbert  and 
Blount;  William  Law  (b.  1686,  a  Non-juror,  d.  1711),  The  Case  of  Rea¬ 
son,  or  Natural  Religion  fairly  and  fully  stated,  in  reply  to  Tindal ;  A.  A. 
Sykes  (b.  1684,  Prebend.  Salisbury,  1723,  d.  1736),  Essay  on  the  Truth 
of  the  Christ.  Religion,  against  Collins,  1725  ;  Richard  Smalbroke  (b.  1672, 
bp.  of  Lichfield,  1730,  d.  1749),  A  Vindication  of  the  Miracles  of  our 
blessed  Saviour,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Whiston,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1729-31 — an 
able  work;  Thos.  Broughton  ,(b.  1704,  d.  1774),  Christianity  distinct  from 
the  Religion  of  Nature,  in  reply  to  Tindal,  3  parts,  1732;  John  Norris, 
Reason  and  Faith  in  Relation  to  the  Mysteries,  Lond.,  1697  ;  Chs.  Leslie 
(comp.  §  225,  b.),  Short  and  Easy  Method  with  Deists  (works,  7  vols.,  8vo., 
Oxf.,  1832)  ;  Peter  Browne  (bp.  of  Cork  and  Rosse,  d.  1735),  Answer  to 
Toland’s  Christ,  not  Mysterious,  1697  ;  Procedure  and  Limits  of  Human 
Understanding  (a  Supplement  to  the  above),  2d  ed.,  1729  ;  Simon  Browne 
(Dissenter,  b.  1680,  d.  1732),  Defence  of  Religion  of  Nature,  etc.,  against 
Tindal,  Lond.,  1732  ;  Remarks  on  Woolston,  1732  ;  John  Leland  (b.  1691, 
d.  1766),  Remarks  on  H.  DodwelVs  Christianity  not  founded  on  Argument, 
1744  ;  Divine  Authority  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament ;  Defence  of 
Christianity,  in  Answer  to  Tindal ;  Advantage  and  Necessity  of  Christian 
Religion ;  View  of  the  Principal  Deistical  Writers.] 


228 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


§  239. 

division  of  the  material. 

To  facilitate  the  survey  of  the  history  of  doctrines  during  the 
present  period,  it  will  be  necessary  to  begin,  in  the  special  part  of  it, 
with  those  doctrines  which  most  distinctly  represent  the  doctrinal 
differences  between  the  two  greater  ecclesiastical  bodies — i.  e.  the 
opposition  between  •  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants 8 — and  then 
pass  over  to  those  in  which  these  sections  of  the  church  were  more  or 
less  agreed  (in  contrast  with  the  minor  sects),  and  where  the  anti¬ 
thesis  between  Romanism  and  Protestantism  either  becomes  of  minor 
importance  or  entirely  disappears.  To  the  first  class  belong  the 
doctrine  concerning  the  sources  of  religious  knowledge  (which  may 
be  said  to  constitute  the  formal  principle  of  Romanism  and  Pro¬ 
testantism)  ;  the  doctrine  respecting  man,  sin,  justification,  and  re¬ 
demption  (in  which  the  so-called  material  principle  of  Protestantism 
and  Romanism  respectively,  is  brought  out)  ;  and  lastly,  those  doc¬ 
trines  which  most  clearly  display  the  logical  consequences  of  both 
these  principles — viz.  the  doctrines  of  the  church,2  of  the  sacraments 
(with  the  exception  of  baptism),  and  of  purgatory  (which  forms  a 
part  of  eschatology).3  To  the  second  class  belong  theology  proper, 
and  christology,  the  doctrine  of  baptism,  and  eschatology  (with 
the  exception  of  purgatory). 

1  Here,  too,  we  must  have  constant  regard  to  the  subordinate  antagonism 
between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  (Calvinists),  which  first  came  out 
in  the  doctrine  respecting  the  Lord’s  Supper,  afterwards  in  the  doctrine  of 
predestination,  and  was  also  exhibited  on  other  points,  without  however  in¬ 
volving  on  either  side  an  abandonment  of  the  common  ground  of  Evangeli¬ 
cal  Protestantism  in  its  fundamental  principles.  Here,  too,  may  be  considered 
the  deviating  views  of  the  lesser  religious  parties,  somewhat  receding  from 
the  general  Protestant  principles,  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  those  doctrinal 
points. 

2  The  doctrine  concerning  the  church  also  belongs,  in  a  certain  aspect, 
among  the  fundamental  controverted  points,  especially  in  the  Roman  Catho¬ 
lic  point  of  view ;  see  the  treatise  of  Baur  in  answer  to  Mohler's  Symbolik, 
p.  60,  ss.  But  the  views  of  Protestants  concerning  the  church  resulted 
rather  from  their  principles  on  other  points. 

8  It  has,  indeed,  its  inconveniences,  thus  to  separate  the  different  points 
embraced  in  the  locus  about  the  sacraments,  and  in  eschatology ;  but 
the  advantage  is  found  in  presenting  Symbolism  in  its  true  and  natural 
relation  to  the  whole  History  of  Doctrines ,  thus  facilitating  a  general  view 
of  the  antagonistic  positions.  In  the  doctrines  that  have  respect  to  Theology, 
and  Christology,  and  in  the  doctrine  respecting  Baptism,  come  up  the  chief 
points  of  opposition  between  the  larger  churches  and  the  sects  (Unitarians, 
Anabaptists). 


B.  SPECIAL  HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINES 
DURING  THE  FOURTH  PERIOD. 


FIRST  CLASS. 

THE  CHARACTERISTIC  DOCTRINES  OF  ROMANISM 

AND  PROTESTANTISM. 

(INCLUDING  THE  OPPOSITION  BETWEEN  LUTHERANS  AND  CALVIN¬ 
ISTS,  AND  THE  OPINIONS  OF  THE  MINOR  RELIGIOUS  PARTIES  AND 
SECTS.) 


FIRST  DIVISION. 

THE  DOCTRINES  CONCERNING  THE  SOURCES  OF  KNOWLEDGE. 

(THE  FORMAL  PRINCIPLE). 


FORMAL  PRINCIPLE. 

§  240. 

ROMANISM  AND  PROTESTANTISM. 

Eeppe,  Die  Dogmatik  des  deutschen  Protestantismus.  [Comp,  the  works  referred  to,  voL 
i.,  p.  42.  W.  0.  JDietlein,  Vortrage  iiber  Protest,  und  Katholicismus,  Halle,  1854. 
Schenkel,  Das  Princip.  des  Protestantismus,  1852.  Twesten ,  Protest,  und  Kathol.  in 
his  Dogmatik,  i.  Bp.  Edmond  Gibson ,  Preservative  against  Popery,  18  vols.,  Lond. 
1848-9,  and  Supplement,  8  vols.,  1849,  contains  many  of  the  leading  English  treatises 
on  the  points  of  difference.  D.  Schenkel,  Urspriingliches  Verbaltniss  der  Kirche 
zum  Kanon,  Basel,  1838.  William  Goode ,  Divine  Rule,  repr.  Phil.,  2  vols.,  1848. 
Richard  Baxter ,  Key  for  Catholicy,  1659;  Roman  Tradition  Examined,  1616.  E. 
B.  JPusey,  Rule  of  Faith  as  maintained  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  of  England.] 

From  the  commencement  of  the  Reformation  it  became  evident, 
in  the  course  of  the  struggle,  that  its  adherents  proceeded  upon  a 
different  formal  principle  (as  to  the  source  of  knowledge,  and  rule 
of  faith),  from  that  held  by  the  Roman  Church  of  that  period.  For 


230 


§  240.  Romanism  and  Protestantism. 


while  the  advocates  of  the  Romish  Church  continually  appealed  to 
the  authority  of  tradition,  the  Protestants  refused  to  yield  to  any 
arguments  hut  those  clearly  drawn  from  Scripture.1  This  primi¬ 
tive  difference  was  prominently  brought  forward  in  the  symbolical 
books  in  general,  and  in  those  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  particu¬ 
lar.2  It  may  be  specified  in  the  four  following  particulars  ;  1. 
While  the  Protestant  Church  asserts  that  the  sacred  writings  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  only  sure  source  of  religious 
knowledge,  and  constitute  the  sole  rule  of  faith,3  the  Roman  Catho¬ 
lic  Church  assumes  the  existence  of  another  source  together  with  the 
Bible — viz.  tradition.4  2.  Acording  to  Protestants,  the  Holy  Bible 
is  composed  only  of  the  canonical  writings  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes¬ 
tament,5  while  the  Roman  Catholics  also  ascribe  canonical  authority 
to  the  so-called  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament.6  3.  The  Roman 
Catholic  Church  claims  the  sole  right  of  interpreting  the  Scripture,7 
while  the  Protestant  church  concedes  this  right  in  a  stricter  sense, 
to  every  one  who  possesses  the  requisite  gifts  and  attainments,  but 
in  a  more  comprehensive  sense  to  every  Christian  who  seeks  after 
salvation  ;  it  proceeds  upon  the  principle,  that  Scripture  is  its  own 
interpreter,  according  to  the  analogia  fidei.8  With  this  is  connected, 
in  the  fourth  place,  the  assumption  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
that  the  Yulgate  version,  which  it  sanctions,  is  to  be  preferred 
to  all  other  versions,  as  the  authentic  one,  and  is  thus  to  a  certain 
extent  of  equal  importance  with  the  original,9  while  Protestants 
regard  the  original  only  as  authentic.10 

1  Luther  was  led  to  his  view  about  the  Scriptures,  as  the  only  rule  of  faith, 
from  his  views  about  justification ;  he  came  to  the  formal  by  means  of  the 
material  principle.  Contending  against  the  false  doctrine  of  justification,  as  seen 
in  relation  to  the  sale  of  indulgences,  he  first  of  all  appealed  to  the  Pope  ; 
then  from  the  Pope  ill  instructed,  to  the  Pope  better  instructed ;  then  to  a 
council ;  until  at  last  he  recognized  the  authority  of  Scripture  as  alone  de; 
cisive  ;  and  elevated  this  to  the  rank  of  a  formal  principle.  Even  in  his 
Protestation  at  the  end  of  his  Theses,  he  says,  that  he  is  not  so  presumptuous 
as  to  prefer  his  opinion  to  the  opinion  of  all ;  but  also,  that  he  is  not  so 
thoughtless  as  to  put  the  Divine  Word  below  fables  of  human  invention 
(Werke,  Walch’s  edition,  xviii.,  254  sq.).  He  is  more  definite  at  the  Leipsic 
Disputation  (ibid.,  p.  1160),  saying,  that  no  Christian  can  be  forced  to  bind 
himself  to  aught  but  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  alone  have  divine  right. 
In  his  Resolutions ,  he  rises  distinctly  above  the  authority  of  councils.  Com¬ 
pare  his  other  controversial  works,  and  his  position  at  the  Diet  of  Worms  ; 
see,  further,  SchenJcel ,  Das  Wesen  des  Protest.,  i.,  20  sq.  [Gieseler,  Church 
Hist.,  New  York  ed.,  vol.  v.,  §  34.]  What  Luther  thus  attained  unto  was 
further  developed  by  Melanctbon  :  Loci  Theol.,  ed.  Augusti,  p.  4  sq.  Imo 
nihil  perinde  optarim,  atque  si  fieri  possit,  Christianos,  omnes  in  solis  divinis 
litteris  liberrime  versari  et  in  illarum  indolem  plane  transformari.  Nam  cum 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


231 


in  illis  absolutissimum  sui  imaginem  expresserit  divinitas,  non  poterit  aliur.de 
neqne  certius  neque  purius  cognosci.  Fallitur  quisquis  aliunde  Christianismi 
formam  petit,  quam  e  Scriptura  canonica.  Comp,  also  the  passages  in  the  later 
editions,  in  JBretschseider ,  Corpus  Reform.,  xxi ,  p.  453,  685  sq.,  732.  On  the 
distinction  which  he  makes  between  Scripture  and  the  wTord  of  God,  see 
Heppe,  u.  s.,  p.  216. — Zwingle  came  more  speedily  than  Luther  to  a  clear 
view  of  the  Scriptures  as  a  rule  of  faith,  although  he  did  not  at  first  empha¬ 
size  Scripture  as  such ,  but  the  Word  of  God  in  contrast  with  the  doctrines 
of  man.  Thus,  in  his  treatise  “Yon  der  Klarheit  und  Gwiisse  des  gottlichen 
Wortes”  (Werke,  i.,  81),  he  says  :  “  In  fine,  that  we  may  stop  having  to  give 
an  answer  to  every  body  about  all  sorts  of  objections,  this  is  our  view,  that 
the  Word  of  God  must  be  held  by  us  in  the  highest  honor  (by  Word  of 
God  meaning  only  what  comes  from  the  Spirit  of  God),  and  that  to  no  word 
should  be  given  such  faith  as  to  that.  For  this  word  is  certain,  cannot  fail; 
it  is  clear,  and  will  not  let  us  wander  in  darkness ;  it  teaches  itself,  expounds 
itself,  and  makes  the  human  soul  to  shine  with  all  salvation  and  grace,”  etc. 
See,  too,  his  declarations  at  both  of  the  Zurich  Disputations.  He  speaks  of 
the  Scripture  itself  first  in  his  Architeles  (Opera  iii. ;  see  Ebrard ,  Abend- 
malilslehre,  ii.  46,  sq.).  Thus  on  p.  32  :  Scripturam  sacram  ducem  et  mag- 
istram  esse  oportet,  qua  si  quis  recte  usus  sit,  impunem  esse  oportet,  etiamsi 
doctorculis  rqaxime  displiceat.  And  here  the  highest  rule  is  what  Christ 
teaches,  ibid.,  p.  30  ;  Cunctis  post  habitis  hue  tandem  veni,  ut  nulla  re, 
nullo  sermone  tarn  fiderem,  atque  eo,  qui  ex  ore  Domini  prodiit.  Pag.  31  : 
Dum  lapidem  inquiro,  non  invenio  alium,  quam  lapidem  offensionis  et  petram 
scandali,  ad  quam  offendunt,  quotquot  Pharisseorum  more  irritum  faciunt 
praeceptum  Dei  propter  traditionem  suam.  His  itaque  in  hunc  modum  com- 
paratis,  ccepi  omnem  doctrinam  ad  hunc  lapidem  explorare,  et  si  vidissem 
lapidem  eundem  reddere  colorem  vel  potius  doctrinam  ferre  posse  lapidis 
claritatem,  recipi  earn;  sin  minus,  rejeci ....  Ad  hunc  thesaurum,  puta  ad 
certitudinem  verbi  Dei,  dirigendum  est  cor  nostrum. — And  in  his  Expositio 
Simplex  (Opera,  iv.  p.  67)  :  Non  vel  jota  unum  docemus,  quod  non  ex 
divinis  oraculis  didicerimus,  neque  sententiam  ullam,  cujus  non  primarios 
ecclesiae  doctores,  prophetas,  apostolos,  evangelistas,  episcopos,  interpretes, 
sed  priscos  illos,  qui  purius  ex  fonte  hauserunt,  auctores  habeamus,  (That 
is,  he  urges  in  respect  to  Scripture,  the  idea  of  its  original  and  primitive 
authority.)  Moreover,  according  to  Zwingle,  “  Scripture  can  be  understood 
only  through  and  by  faith,  and  faith  be  confirmed,  as  to  its  being  right,  only 
by  the  Scripture,  which  is  rightly  understood  by  faith.”  (The  Analogia  fidei. 
He  gives  as  an  illustration,  the  case  of  one,  who  should  try  to  put  a  horse  to 
a  cart  without  harness  or  lines,  or  to  draw  the  cart  with  ropes  without  the 
horse ;  both  belong  together — German  Works,  ii.  2,  p.  3). — The  principle 
about  Scripture  is  more  abstractly  presented  by  Calvin ,  Instit.  I.  c.  6,  §  2  : 
Sic  autem  habendum  est,  ut  nobis  affulgeat  vera  religio,  exordium  a  ccelesti 
doctrina  fieri  debere,  nec  quemquam  posse  vel  minimum  gustum  rectae 
sanaeque  doctrinae  percipere,  nisi  qui  Scriptures  fuerit  discipulus.  Unde 
etiam  emergit  verae  intelligentiae  principium,  ubi  reverenter  amplectimur* 
quod  de  se  illic  testari  Deus  voluit.  (Compare  what  he  says  in  the  context 
of  this  chapter,  and  in  the  subsequent  chapters.) 


232  Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


2  The  Lutheran  symbols  do  not  contain  any  separate  article  de  Sacra  Scrip- 
tura,  but  occasionally  oppose  tradition.  Comp.  Confess.  August.,  p.  13,  28 
ss.  Apolog.,  p.  205  ss.  Articles  of  Smalcald,  p.  337.  The  Form.  Concord, 
is  more  definite,  p.  570.  On  the  other  hand,  the  symbols  of  the  Reformed 
Church,  for  the  most  part,  commence  with  the  article  de  Sacra  Scriptura,  or 
have  a  special  article  elsewhere  (see  the  next  note).  The  only  exception  is 
the  first  Confession  of  Basle,  which,  nevertheless,  concludes  with  a  submission 
of  all  its  articles  to  the  authority  of  Scripture.  Compare  note  3. 

3  Articles  of  Smalcald,  1.  c. :  Regulam  autem  aliam  habemus,  ut  videlicet 
verbum  Dei  condat  articulos  fidei  et  prfeterea  nemo,  ne  angelus  quidem. 
Form.  Cone.,  1.  c. :  Credimus ...  unicam  regulam  et  normam,  secundum 
quam  omnia  dogmata  omnesque  doctores  sestimari  et  judicari  oporteat,  nul- 
lam  omnino  aliam  esse,  quam  prophetica  et  apostolica  scripta  cum  V.  turn 
N.  T.  Reliqua  vero  sive  patrum  sive  neotericorum  scripta,  quocunque  veni- 
ant  nomine,  sacris  litteris  nequaquam  sunt  aequiparanda.  Comp.  Sol.  Deck, 
p.  632. — Conf.  Helv.,  I.  (Bas.  II.)  :  Scriptura  canonica  verbum  Dei,  Spiritu 
S.  tradita,  omnium  perfectissima  et  antiquissima  philosophia ,  pietatem 
omnem,  omnem  vitae  rationem,  sola  perfecte  continet. — Helv.,  II.,  1  :  In 
Scriptura  sancta  habet  universalis  Christiana  ecclesia  plenissime  exposita, 
quaecunque  pertinent  cum  ad  salvificam  fidem  turn  ad  vitam  Deo  placentem 
recte  informandam  . . .  Sentimus  ergo  ex  hisce  scripturis  petendam  esse  veram 
sapientiam  et  pietatem,  ecclesiarum  quoque  reformationem  et  gubernationem 
omniumque  officiorum  pietatis  institutionem,  probationem  denique  dogma- 
turn  reprobationemque  aut  errorum  confutationem  omnium,  sed  admonitiones 
omnesA  Cap.  2  :  Non  alium  snstinemus  in  causa  fidei  judicem,  quam  ip- 
sum  Deum  per  Script.  S.  pronunciantem,  quid  verum  sit,  quid  falsum,  quid 
sequendum  sit,  quidve  fugiendum. — Repudiamus  traditiones  humanas,  quse 
tametsi  insigniantur  speciosis  titulis,  quasi  divinse  apostolicaeque  sint,  viva 
voce  apostolorein  et  ceu  per  manus  virorum  apostolicorum  succedentibus 
episcopis  ecclesiee  traditae,  compositae  tamen  cum  scripturis  ab  his  discrepant, 
discrepantiaque  ilia  sua  ostendunt,  se  minime  esse  apostolicas.  Sicut  enim 
Apostoli  inter  se  diversa  non  docuerunt,  ita  et  apostolici  non  contraria  apos- 
tolis  ediderunt.  Quinimo  impium  esset  asseverare,  apostolos  vive  voce  con- 
traria  scriptis  suis  tradidisse. — Comp.,  Conf.  Gall.,  Art.  5 ;  Belg.  7  ;  Angl. 
6;  Scot,  18,  etc.,  quoted  by  Winer ,  pp.  30,  31.  The  Remonstrants  and  So- 
cinians  agreed  with  the  Protestants  in  this  general  formal  principle.  See 
Conf.  Remonstr.,  i.  10  ss.,  i.  13  ;  Cat.  Racov.,  Qu.  31  and  33,  quoted  by 
Winer,  pp.  31,  32.  Concerning  the  sense  in  which  Protestants  take  tradi¬ 
tion,  see  below  (§  241).f  That  the  same  importance  should  afterwards  be 

*  The  Confession,  however,  grants,  that  God  can  enlighten  man  on  extraordinary  cases, 
even  without  the  preaching  of  the  word :  Agnoscimus  interim,  Deum  illuminare  posse 
homines,  etiam  sine  externo  ministerio,  quos  et  quando  velit ;  id  quod  ejus  potential  est. 
Nos  autem  loquimur  de  usitata  ratione  instituendi  homines,  et  praecepto  et  exemplo  tra¬ 
dita  nobis  a  Deo. 

f  In  reference  to  external  rites  (which  are  transmitted  to  us  by  tradition)  the  Conf. 
Angl.,  says,  Art.  34 :  Traditiones  atque  ceremonias  easdem,  non  omnino  necessariurn  est 
esse  ubique,  aut  prorsus  consimiles.  Nam  ut  varise  semper  fuerunt,  et  mutari  possunt,  pro 
jegionum,  temporum  et  morum  diversitate,  mo  do  nihil  contra  verbum  Dei  instituatur. 


§  240.  Romanism  and  Protestantism. 


233 


assigned  to  the  symbolical  writings  of  the  Protestant  Churches,  which  was 
formerly  ascribed  to  tradition  (Form.  Cons.,  Helv.  26),  was  not  the  intention 
of  their  original  authors  ;  see  the  conclusion  of  the  first  Confession  of  Basle  ; 
“And  lastly,  we  submit  this  our  confession  to  the  authority  of  Holy  Writ, 
and  are  willing  to  render  grateful  obedience  to  God  and  his  Holy  Word, 
whenever  we  shall  be  better  instructed  therefrom.”  Comp.  Confess.  Helv. 
II.,  and  Confess.  Scot,  at  the  close  of  the  preface. 

4  Cone.  Trid.,  sess.  IV.,  (de  Canon.  Scripturis)  :  Synodus . hoc  sibi 

perpetuo  ante  oculos  proponens,  ut  sublatis  erroribus  puritas  ipsa  evangelii 
in  ecclesia  conservetur. . . .  perspiciensque  veritatem  et  disciplinam  contineri 
in  libris  scriptis  et  sine  scripto  traditionibus ,  quae  ex  ipsius  Christi  ore  ab 
apostolis  acceptae,  aut  ab  ipsius  apostolis  Spiritu  Sancto  dictante ,  quasi  per 
manus  traditce ,  ad  nos  usque  pervenerunt :  orthodoxorum  patrum  exempla 
secuta,  omnes  libros  tarn  V.  quam  N.  T.  cum  utriusque  unus  Deus  sit  auctor, 
necnon  traditiones  ipsas ,  turn  ad  fidem,  turn  ad  mores  pertinentes,  tamquam 
vel  oretenus  a  Christo,  vel  a  Spiritu  Sancto  dictatas  et  continua  successione 
in  ecclesia  catholica  conservatas,  pari  pietatis  affectu  ac  reverentia  suscipit  et 

veneratur . Si  quis  autem . traditiones  prsedictas  sciens  et  prudens 

contemserit,  anathema  sit.  Comp.  Cat.  Rom.  prsef.  12;  and  on  the  nature 
of  tradition,  see  the  passages  from  Bellarmine  De  Verbo  Dei  iv.  3,  quoted  by 
Winer,  pp.  30  and  31.  [See  also  Kollner,  Symbolik,  ii.  342-354.]  Cam 
Loci  Theolog.  3.  The  doctrine  of  the  Greek  Church  is  similar,  Confess, 
orthod.  p.  18  :  Qavepov  nebg  ra  apOpa  rijg  nicrreGjg  exovot  to  icvpog  nail 
tt]v  dotapacriav,  fiepog  ano  rrjv  ayiav  ypacprjv,  pepog  dno  rrjv  enicXrjOLao- 
tikt)v  napddooiv. 

5  Compare  the  passage  in  note  3,  and  what  is  said  of  the  quam  prophetica 
et  apostolica  scripta  cum  V.  turn  N.  T. — The  Apocrypha  was  more  distinctly 
rejected  in  the  symbols  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  as  well  as  in  those  of  the 
Arminians,  Mennonites,  and  Socinians.  Confess.  Helv.  II.  1.  Gall.  3,  4. 
Confess.  Belg.  6.  Confess.  Remonstr.  i.  6.  (Winer,  p.  41).  Some  confes¬ 
sions  of  faith  even  contain  lists  of  the  canonical  writings,  e.  g.,  Conf.  Angl. 
6  ;  Belg.  Art.  4.  (But  the  free  examination  of  the  canon  was  thus  pre¬ 
vented  or  limited.) 

9  Cone.  Trid.  sess.  IV.  Decret.  1. — Respecting  the  reasons  by  which  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  may  have  been  induced  to  ascribe  so  much  import¬ 
ance  to  the  Apocrypha  (which  indeed  contained  proofs  of  some  of  its  doc¬ 
trines,  but  with  which  it  could  dispense  in  consequence  of  the  authority 
ascribed  to  tradition),  see  MarheineJce,  Symb.  vol.  ii.  p.  234,  ss.  Winer,  p. 
41.  [Kollner,  Symbolik,  ii.  346-8.] 

7  Cone.  Trid.  sess.  IV.,  decret.  de  Edit,  et  Usu  S.  S. :  Ad  coercenda  petu- 
lantia  ingenia  decernit  (Synodus),  ut  nemo  suae  prudentiae  innixus,  in  rebus 

Traditiones  et  ceremonias  ecclesiasticas,  quee  cum  verbo  Dei  non  pugnant,  et  sunt  auctoritate 
publica  institutae  atque  probatae,  quisquis  privato  consilio  volens,  et  data  opera,  publice 
violaverit,  is,  ut  qui  peccat  in  publicum  ordinem  ecclesiae,  quique  laedit  auctoritatem  magis¬ 
trate,  et  qui  infirmorum  fratrum  conscientias  vulnerat,  publice,  ut  caeteri  timeant,  arguen- 
dus  est.  Quaelibet  ecclesia  partieularis,  sive  nationalis,  auctoritatem  habet  instituendi, 
mutandi,  aut  abrogaudi  ceremonias,  aut  ritus  ecclesiasticos,  humana  tantum  auctoritate 
institutos ,  modo  omnia  ad  aedificationem  fiant. 


234 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


fidei  et  morum  ad  aedificationem  doctrinae  christianae  pertinentium,  sacram 
scripturam  ad  snos  sensus  contorquens  contra  eum  sensum,  quern  tenuit  et 
tenet  sancta  mater  ecclesia,  cujus  est  judicare  de  vero  sensu  et  interpretations 
Scripturarum  Sanctorum,  aut  etiam  contra  unanimem  consensum  patrum 
ipsam  scripturam  sacram  interpretari  audeat,  etiamsi  hujusmodi  interpreta- 
tiones  nullo  unquam  tempore  in  lucem  edendae  forent.  Qui  contravenerint, 
per  ordinarios  declarentur  et  pcenis  a  jure  statutis  puniantur.  The  particular 
comment  is  given  by  Bellarmine ,  De  Yerbo  Dei,  iii.  3.  The  principal  ques¬ 
tion  is,  where  the  Spirit  is  to  be  found,  to  which  he  of  course  replies,  in  the 
church.  When  differences  arise  (which  were  foreseen  by  God),  there  must 
be  some  authority  to  decide.  But  this  can  be  neither  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
nor  a  revelation  made  to  an  individual,  nor  the  secular  power.  Accordingly, 
no  other  authority  remains  than  the  princeps  ecclesiasticus,  i.  e.  the  pope, 
either  alone  or  in  connection  with  the  bishops.  Scripture,  like  a  law,  admits 
of  several  interpretations.  In  every  well-ordered  state  the  power  of  legisla¬ 
tion  and  the  power  of  jurisdiction  are  two  different  things.  The  law  com¬ 
mands,  the  judge  interprets  the  law,  therefore  Scripture  cannot  be  its  own 
interpreter.  Yet  neither  pope  nor  council  interpret  arbitrarily,  but  accord¬ 
ing  to  Divine  inspiration.  Comp.  J.  Gretseri  Tractat.  Unde  Scis,  hunc  vel 
ilium  esse  sincerum  et  legitimum  Scripturae  Sensum. —  Cani  Loci  Theolog. 
lib.  iv.  JBecani  Manuale  i.  5. — The  Greeks  agree  with  the  Roman  Catholics 
as  regards  the  general  principle  of  the  authority  of  the  church,  but  limit  it 
to  the  oecumenical  councils.  See  the  passages  in  Winer,  pp.  35,  36.  Klau - 
sen,  Hermeneutik,  p.  286,  ss. 

8  As  early  as  the  time  in  which  the  various  disputations  with  the  Roman 
Catholics  took  place,  the  Reformers  claimed  the  right  of  free  interpretation 
of  Scripture,  i.  e.,  an  interpretation  independent  of  the  councils.  Comp. 
Zwingle,  Yon  der  Klarheit  des  Wortes  Gottes  (deutsche  Schriften,  i.  p.  76, 
ss.) ;  also  his  Antwort  an  Yal.  Compar.  (ibid.  i.  2,  p.  9,  sq .)  Calvin,  Instit. 

i.  7,  8.  Here  again  the  symbols  of  the  Reformed  Churches  express  them¬ 
selves  in  more  definite  language  than  those  of  the  Lutheran  Church  ( Winer, 
1.  c.)  Confess.  Helv.  I.  (II.  Confess,  of  Basle)  Art.  2  :  Scripturae  Sacrae  in- 
terpretatio  ex  ipsa  sola  petenda  est,  ut  ipsa  interpres  sit  sui,  caritatis  fideique 
regula  moderante. — Conf.  Helv.  II.  c.  2  :  Scripturas  sanctus  dixit  Ap.  Petrus- 
(2  Petr.  i.  20),  non  esse  interpretationis  privatae.  Proinde  non  probamus 
interpretation es  quaslibet :  unde  nec  pro  vera  aut  genuina  scripturarum  in- 
terpretatione  agnoscimus  eum,  quem  vocant  sensum  romanae  ecclesiae,  quern 
scilicet  simpliciter  romanae  ecclesiae  defensores  omnibus  obtrudere  conten- 
dunt  recipiendum.  Sed  illam  duntaxat  scripturarum  interpretationem  pro 
orthodoxa  et  genuina  agnoscimus,  quae  ex  ipsis  est  petita  scripturis  (ex  in- 
genio  utique  ejus  lingua,  in  qua  sunt  scriptce,  secundum  circumstantias  item 
expensae  et  pro  ratione  locorum  vel  similium  vel  dissimilium  plurium  quoque 
et  clariorum  expositae)  cum  regula  fidei  et  caritatis  congruit  et  ad  gloriam 
Dei  hominumque  salutem  eximie  facit.  Comp.  Conf.  Scot.  18.  Conf.  Re- 
monstr.  i.  14. — The  Socinians  distinctly  avowed  the  same  principle  in 
agreement  with  the  orthodox  Protestants.  Cat.  Racov.  Qu.  36  :  Etsi  diffi- 
cultates  quaedem  in  S.  S.  occurrunt,  tamen  multa  alia,  turn  ea,  quae  sunt  ad 
salutem  necessaria,  ita  perspicue  aliis  in  locis  S.  S.  sunt  tradita,  ut  ab  uno- 


§  240.  Romanism  and  Protestantism. 


235 


quoque,  maxime  vero  pietatis  ac  veritatis  studioso  et  divinam  opem  implorante , 
possint  intelligi. — It  is  also  to  be  observed,  that  the  Protestants  fully  re¬ 
cognized  the  distinction,  on  the  one  hand,  between  the  learned  interpretation 
and  the  general  common-sense  understanding  of  the  Scripture,  and  on  the 
other,  between  such  a  general  understanding  and  the  more  profound  insight 
into  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  which  is  granted  to  none  but  the  regenerate. 
Comp,  the  extracts  from  Luther’s  works  given  by  Walch,  ix.  p.  8 57.* 
“  Analogia  fdei  and  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit  were  acknowledged  as  the 
guides  in  interpreting  Scripture .”  Winer,  p.  37.  On  the  principles  of  inter¬ 
pretation  adopted  by  the  Reformers,  see  Schenkel ,  ubi  supra,  i.  67,  sq. — In 
respect  to  the  obscure  passages  of  Scripture,  Luther  says  (Walch,  xviii.)  : 
“  Let  it  go  where  it  is  dark;  hold  to  it  where  it  is  clear.” — “  To  interpret  and 
illustrate  Scripture  by  Scripture,”  was  his  hermeneutical  canon,  and  that  of 
the  Reformers,  which  they  carried  out  in  a  practical  way.  Comp.  Zwingle , 
in  Note  1,  above. 

9  Cone.  Trid.  sess.  4  :  Synodus,  considerans  non  parum  utilitatis  accedere 

posse  ecclesise  Dei,  si  ex  omnibus  latinis  editionibus,  quae  circumferunter, 
sacrorum  librorum,  qusenam  pro  authentica  habenda  sit,  innotescat,  statuit  et 
declarat,  ut  haec  ipsa  vetus  et  vulgata  editio,  quse  longo  tot  sseculorum  usu 
in  ipsa  ecclesia  probata  est,  in  publicis  lectionibus,  disputationibus,  prsedica- 
tionibus  et  expositionibus  pro  authentica  habeatur  et  ut  nemo  earn  rejicere 
quovis  praetextu  audeat  vel  prsesumat.  Respecting  the  meaning  of  the  pas¬ 
sage,  see  Winer ,  p.  39,  and  the  passages  quoted  by  him  from  Bella, rmine, 
and  the  doctrinal  writers  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ;  Schrockh ,  Kir- 
chengeschichte  seit  der  Reformation,  IV.  p.  132,  ss. ;  Marheineke ,  Symb.  ii. 
p.  241,  ss. — This  canon  shows,  that  its  authors  not  only  ascribed  minor  im¬ 
portance  to  the  original,  but  were  also  virtually  opposed  to  translations  into 
modern  languages  (inasmuch  as  even  the  texts  of  sermons  are  to  be  selected 
from  the  Vulgate),  and  also  to  their  circulation  among  the  laity.  Comp. 
Winer,  p.  40.  [ Kollner ,  ubi  supra.] 

10  The  Confess.  Helv.  II.  2,  has  a  reference  to  the  original  (comp,  note  8). 
In  accordance  with  their  principles  of  interpretation,  the  Protestants  asserted 
that  a  more  precise  scientific  study  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  is  impossible, 
without  the  knowledge  of  .the  original  languages ;  accordingly  exegesis , 
founded  upon  solid  philological  studies,  forms  among  Protestants  the  basis 
of  the  study  of  theology.  On  the  other  hand,  they  determined  as  defi¬ 
nitely,  that  a  version,  as  faithful  as  possible  to  the  original,  was  sufficient 
for  practical  purposes.  But  it  never  would  have  occurred  to  them  to 
select  among  these  translations  one  (e.  g.  that  of  Luther),  and  designate  it  as 
as  the  only  authentic  one ;  though  many  have,  to  the  present  day,  hesitated 
to  enlighten  the  people  on  the  differences  sometimes  existing  between  the 
translation  and  the  original.  But  is  this  Protestant? 


236 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


§  241. 

DIVERGENT  VIEWS  OF  SOME  SECTS. 

A.  The  Mystical  Principle. 

j 

The  Protestants  maintained  the  authority  of  Scripture,  not  only  in 
opposition  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  tradition,  but  also  to 
the  mystical  principle,  which  insists  upon  the  internal  word,  at  the 
expense  of  the  external.  Among  the  advocates  of  the  latter  were 
included,  not  only  the  Anabaptists,  who,  besides  holding  stiffly  to 
the  letter  of  Scripture,1  also  appealed  after  the  manner  of  the  Mon- 
tanists,  to  new  revelations  ;2  but  also  others,  who  insisted  upon  the 
insufficiency  of  the  external  word,  agreeing  more  or  less  with  the 
the  Anabaptists.  Among  them  were  Sebastian  Frank, 3  Caspar 
Schwenckfeld ,4  Theobald  Thamer ,5  and  Michael  Servetus.6  In  essen¬ 
tial  agreement  with  them  were  the  Quakers ,7  as  well  as  the  followers 
of  Labadie ,8  who  attached  great  importance  to  internal  revelation, 
as  that  by  which  the  external  revelation  is  rendered  intelligible, 
and  from  which  it  receives  its  authority.  From  the  negative 
point  of  view,  these  sects  supposed,  like  the  Roman  Catholics,  the 
existence  of  another  authority  in  addition  to  that  of  Scripture,  or 
rather  above  it ;  positively,  they  differed  more  widely  from  Roman¬ 
ism  than  did  Protestants,  by  rejecting  every  objective  authority, 
and  appealing  to  nothing  but  subjective  experience,  mere  internal 
feeling.  Thus  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  authority  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  occupies  an  intermediate  position  between  the  ecclesiastical 
objectivity  of  Romanism,  and  the  mystical  subjectivity  of  Separ¬ 
atism. 

1  Even  Carlstadt  was  stiff  upon  the  letter  of  Scripture  ;  see  SchenJcel ,  i. 
40,  sq.  On  his  earlier,  and  more  prudent  view,  see  the  work,  De  Canonicis 
Scripturis  Libellus  D.  Andrese  Bodenstein  Carolstadii,  etc.,  Witenb.,  1529 ; 
and  Erbkam ,  Prot.  Secten,  189.  The  opposition  of  the  Zwickau  people  to 
infant  baptism  is  also  to  be  explained  in  part  as  an  exaggeration  of  the  formal 
principle  of  Protestantism.  On  the  literalness  of  the  Swiss  Anabaptists, 
particularly  Hubmeier ,  and  the  polemics  of  Zwingle  against  them,  see  Bui - 
linger ,  in  SchenJcel ,  i.  47,  sq.  Zwingle  wrote  his  Elenchus  against  them 
(Opera,  iii.  p.  367). 

2  Planck ,  ubi  supra,  p.  44.  They  were,  on  the  one  hand,  extremely  lit¬ 

eral,  and  yet  they  insisted  strongly,  on  the  other  hand,  upon  the  differ¬ 

ence  of  the  letter  and  the  spirit  (according  to  2  Cor.  iii.  6).  Comp. 

Calvin  in  his  Institutes,  I.  9.  How  Luther,  and  the  Reformers,  regarded 

their  visions  and  new  revelations  is  well  known ;  see  e.  y.,  Luther’s  letter  to 

Melancthon  in  De  Wette’s  Briefe  Luthers,  ii.  No.  358  ;  compare  the  views 


§  241.  Divergent  Views  of  Some  Sects. 


237 


of  John  Denck,  and  Hetzer ,  cited  in  Schenkel ,  i.  143.  Hagen ,  Geist  der 
Reform,  ii.  282.  The  later  and  more  prudent  Mennonites  returned  to 
Scripture. 

3  Sebastian  Frank,  in  his  work,  “  Das  verbiitschirte,  mit  sieben  Siegeln 
verschlossene  Buch,”  tries  to  show  that  the  literal  interpretation  of  Scripture 
involves  us  in  inextricable  contradictions ;  “  God  means  to  use  the  Scripture 
to  drive  us  to  the  Scripture,  and  make  us  anxious  and  fearful  thereby,  so 
that  we  may  be  forced  out  of  the  Scripture  back  again  to  and  into  him,  and 
hasten  to  ask  counsel  of  his  mouth  and  Spirit,”  etc.  “  The  Scripture,”  he 
says,  “  is  both  good  and  evil,  clear  and .  obscure,  according  to  the  mode  in 
which  we  take  it  in  hand  ;  to  the  perverse,  it  is  evil  and  dark.  Therefore 
the  Holy  Spirit  will  not  permit  us  to  be  satisfied  with  the  Scripture,  or  to 
make  an  idol  of  it,  as  if  we  always  stood  'in  need  of  it ;  but  sends  us  to  in¬ 
quire  of  Him  for  the  right  understanding  and  interpretation  of  it.”  See  his 
tract,  Wie  alle  Ding  vor  in  der  Natur  sind  (in  Schenkel ,  i.  140). — Even  the 
devil  can  be  very  Scriptural,  yea,  even  put  himself  into  the  midst  of  the 
letters  of  Scripture,  as  he  has  already  done  by  so  many  sects,  who  have 
nothing  but  vain  Scripture  on  their  side.”  (Preface  to  his  Zeitbuch). 
“  The  Scripture-learnt  devil  makes  anything  and  everything  out  of  Scrip¬ 
ture.”  See  Paradoxa,  p.  134  (in  Schenkel,  ubi  supra.  Hagen,  p.  436,  sq. 
Erbkam ,  295,  sq*). 

4  He  wrote:  De  Cursu  Verbi  Dei,  edit.  J.  (Ecolampadius,  Bas.,  1527. 
Schwenkfeld  maintained  in  this  work,  that  faith  does  not  proceed  from  ex¬ 
ternal  things,  such  as  the  external  revelation  of  hearing,  but  from  the  inter¬ 
nal  revelation,  which  must  be  antecedent  to  the  ministration  of  the  external. 
Abraham  believed  without  sermon  and  without  hearing.  The  letter  is  only 
the  vessel  of  the  Spirit :  they  should  not  be  confounded  with  each  other. 
Schwenkfeld  also  made  a  parallel  between  the  Bible  and  nature  (comp. 
Raimund  of  Sabunde).  The  whole  world  is  to  him  “a  great  book,  all  glori¬ 
ous  with  paintings  and  descriptions,  in  many  sorts  of  letters,  of  the  works 
of  God.”  These  works  are  V  living  letters,”  which  men  ever  have  before 
their  eyes  ;  they  are  the  genuine  “  peasants’  calendar,”  the  real  “  lay  Bible,” 
in  which  those  can  read  who  do  not  understand  any  other  kinds  of  writings. 
Hence  Christ  points  to  the  birds  of  heaven  and  the  lilies  of  the  valley. 
See  Schenkel,  ubi  supra,  p.  150.  Yet  Schwenkfeld  did  not  take  a  position 
hostile  to  the  Bible  ;  it  was  to  him  the  test  by  which  to  try  all  divine  reve¬ 
lation.  Comp.  Erbkam,  425,  sq. 

6  On  him  see  Neander's  tract,  Theobald  Thamer,  the  Representative  and 
Forerunner  of  Modern  Spiritualistic  Tendencies  in  the  Times  of  the 
Reformation,  Berlin,  1842. — Thamer  was  accustomed  not  to  •  read  the 
gospel  text  in  the  pulpit,  but  to  recite  it  without  book,  “  because  a  real 
evangelical  preacher  ought  not  only  to  learn  the  dead  letter,  but  to  be  a 
Bible  in  his  works,  prayers,  and  life.”  Neander,  p.  21.  He  accused  Luther 
and  his  disciples  of  deifying  the  letter  of  the  Bible  :  “  When  any  one  asks 
thee,  how  thou  knowest  that  these  texts  are  the  gospel  ?  thou  repliest  by 
bringing  forward  a  perverted  witness,  the  Scripture  and  the  letter,  written  on 
paper  with  ink,  which  in  itself  is  as  good  as  dumb,  and  answers  thee  in  a 
dead  language,  which  thou  dost  not  understand.  The  human,  yea  J ewish  and 


238 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


perverted  sense,  thou  not  only  holdest  to  be  higher  than  conscience ,  which 
the  revealed  deity  itself*  and  than  all  God’s  creatures  and  works,  hut  thou 
also  makest  it  to  be  the  queen  of  all  saints  and  angels  in  heaven.”  “  Any¬ 
thing  is  not  true  because  it  stands  in  the  Bible,  but  it  is  in  the  Bible  because 
it  is  true  of  itself see  Neander ,  24  ;  SchenJcel ,  i.  144,  sq.  Like  Scliwenk- 
feld,  he  also  appeals  to  the  revelations  in  nature,  and  accuses  his  opponents 
of  Manicheeism ;  comp.  Neander ,  p.  31. — [On  Thamer,  compare  also  Theo¬ 
bald  Thamer  und  Landgraf  Philip,  by  K.  W.  H.  Hochhuth ,  in  Zeitschrift 
f.  d.  hist.  TheoL,  1861,  s.  165-280  :  his  various  works,  pp.  166-8.  Comp. 
Neander,  Hist.  Dogmas,  p.  631;  Niedner,  § 78;  Pestalozzi's  Bullinger,  s. 
461,  sq.  Thamer  studied  in  Wittenberg,  1535,  was  Prof,  in  Marburg,  1543, 
died  1569.] 

•  Servetus ,  too,  distinguishes  in  Scripture  the  external  and  the  internal 
word  ;  and  in  this  sense,  it  is  to  him  a  two-edged  sword.  He  also  shows 
how  Christianity  is  older  than  the  Scripture  (the  New  Test.).  See  his  Chris- 
tianismi  Restitutio,  p.  627  ;  Illud  verum  est  quod  sine  Scripturis  stare  potest 
ecclesia  Christi  vera,  et  erat  ecclesia  Christi,  antequam  apostoli  scriberent. 
Ecclesise  prophetia,  interpretatio  et  vox  viva  prsefertur  Scripturse  mortuse. 
SchenJcel ,  ubi  supra. 

7  Barclaii  Apol.  thes.  2 . Divinae  revelationes  internse,  quas  ad 

fundendam  veram  fidem  absolute  necessarias  esse  adstruimus,  externo  scrip- 
turarum  testimonio  aut  sanae  ratione  ut  nec  contradicunt,  ita  nec  unquam 
contradicere  possunt.  Non  tamen  inde  sequitur,  quod  hae  revelationes 
divinae  ad  externum  scripturarum  testimonium  aut  etiam  ad  rationem  natu- 
ralem  seu  humanam,f  tamquam  ad  nobiliorem  aut  certiorem  normam  et 
amussim,  examinari  debeant.  Nam  divina  revelatio  et  illuminatio  interna 
est  quiddam  per  se  evidens  et  clarum,  intellectum  bene  dispositum  propria 
evidentia  et  claritate  cogens  ad  assentiendum,  atque  insuperabiliter  movens 
et  flectens  non  minus,  quam  principia  communia  veritatum  naturalium 
(cujusmodi  sunt :  totum  est  majus  sua  parte;  duo  contradictoria  non  pos¬ 
sunt  esse  simul  vera  aut  falsa)  movent  flectuntque  animum  ad  assensum 
naturalem.  Comp,  the  commentary  to  this  thesis  in  Winer,  p.  53.  On  the 
principle  of  interpretation,  see  Apol.  x.  19,  p.  198  :  Quidquid  homo  sua  in- 
dustria  in  linguis  et  eruditione  in  scripturis  inveniere  potest,  totum  nihil  est 
sine  spiritu,  absque  quo  nihil  certum,  semper  fallibile  judicatum  est.  Sed~ 
vir  rusticus,  huj  usque  eruditionis  ignarus,  qui  ne  vel  elementum  norit,  quando 
scripturam  lectam  audit,  eodem  spiritu  hoc  esse  verum  dicere  potest  et 

*  In  another  place,  Thamer  calls  conscience  the  true  living  throne  of  grace,  “  where  we 
ask  God  how  and  what  we  ought  to  do  or  leave  undone.  One  may  hear  the  external 
Scripture  for  a  thousand  years,  and  if  he  has  not  within  him  the  living  word,  the  divinity 
of  Christ  or  the  conscience,  it  is  to  him  no  word  at  all.”  Neander ,  p.  28.  Thamer  tried 
to  ridicule  the  orthodox  idea  of  inspiration :  “  They  imagine  it  to  have  been  like  this, 
that  God  sat  there  with  a  great  beard,  as  the  painters  represent  him  on  the  wall,  and  took 
up  a  word  with  his  hand,  i.  e.,  a  sound,  and  put  it  on  the  tongue  of  Jeremiah,”  etc.  Mean- 
der ,  26. 

\  His  principle  is  therefore  not  to  be  confounded  with  that  of  the  Rationalists.  Bar¬ 
clay  places  the  internal  revelation  alike  above  reason  and  Scripture  (mystical  supranatu- 
ralism.) 


§  242.  The  Rationalistic  Principle.  (Socinians.)  239 

eodem  spiritu  intelligere,  et  si  necesse  sit,  interpretari  potest. — iii.  4,  p.  44. 

. Nullus  adeo  illitteratus,  surdus  aut  tam  remote  loco  positus  est, 

quem  non  attingat  et  recte  instruat ;  cujus  etiam  spiritus  evidentia  et 
revelatio  ea  sola  est,  qua  difficultatibus  illis,  quae  de  scripturis  occurrunt, 
liberamur. 

* 

8  Though  the  sacred  Scriptures  contain  truth,  they  are  not  themselves 
the  truth,  but  God  and  Jesus  Christ  are  that  truth.  Properly  speaking,  the 
Bible  itself  does  not  gj&ve  eternal  life,  but  God,  who  is  life,  works  it  in  us. 
. . . . — We  are  to  believe  the  mouth,  i.  e .,  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  still  speaks 
to  us,  rather  than  the  pen  of  the  writers  whom  he  employed.  Divine  truth 
is  infinite,  nor  can  it  be  restricted  to  any  letter ;  therefore  there  may  be 
many  truths  which  are  divine  truths,  without  being  strictly  contained  in 
Scripture,  and  which  to  reject  merely  because  they  are  not  found  in  Scrip¬ 
ture,  would  be  sinfal.  We  are  not  to  believe  a  doctrine  because  it  is  writ¬ 
ten ,  but  because  it  comes  from  God.  (In  contrast  with  a  degenerate  adherence 
to  the  letter  in  later  times,  such  views  are  worthy  of  notice.)  See  Arnold , 
Kirchen-und  Ketzerhistorie,  vol.  ii.  p.  687.  (Frankf.  edit.,  1700.) 

9  In  common  with  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  in  opposition  to  the 
principle  adopted  by  the  Quakers,  Protestants  assert  the  necessity  of  having 
something  positive,  which  is  objectively  given ,  but  find  it  in  Scripture  alone 
and  not  in  the  authority  of  the  church.  In  common  with  the  Quakers,  and 
in  opposition  to  Roman  Catholics,  they  are  anti-catholic,  rejecting  the  au¬ 
thority  of  the  church.  Thus  the  Quakers  will  regard  the  historico-positive 
tendency  of  Protestantism  as  a  catholic  element,  while  Roman  Catholics 
will  charge  that  principle  with  fomenting  divisions,  because  of  its  internal 
and  subjective  character. 

§  242. 

B.  THE  RATIONALISTIC  PRINCIPLE.  (SOCINIANS.) 

Protestants  not  only  rejected  these  mystical  notions,  but  also  the 
rationalistic  principle,  according  to  which  the  authority  of  Scripture 
is  subordinate  to  that  of  reason,  and  its  interpretation  made  to  de¬ 
pend  on  the  so-called  truths  of  reason.1  Such  a  doctrine  was  pro¬ 
pounded  by  the  Socinians,  who  acknowledged  the  necessity  of  an 
external  revelation,2  and  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  though  in  the 
first  instance,  only  of  the  Hew  Testament,3  but,  proceeding  upon  the 
fundamental  principle,  that  Scripture  can  not  contain  anything  that 
is  either  incomprehensible  or  contrary  to  reason  (i.  e.  to  the  reason 
of  Socinians),4  were,  in  .many  cases,  induced  to  adopt  the  most  arbi¬ 
trary  interpretations.6 

1  Lutber  in  several  passages  expressed  himself  against  reason,  considering 
it  to  be  blind  in  spiritual  things. 

*  Faustus  Socinus  went  so  far  as  to  assert  the  the  impossibility  of  a  mere 


240 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


religion  of  reason  without  a  higher  revelation.  Opp.  ii.  p.  454,  a. :  Homo 
ipse  per  se  nec  se  ipsum  nee  Deum  ejusque  voluntatem  cognoscere  potest, 
sed  necesse  est,  ut  hsec  illi  Deus  aliqua  ratione  patefaciat.  Comp.  Prselectt. 
Theol.  c.  2.  Ostorodt ,  TJnterr.  p.  10  :  “  Men,  however,  do  not  derive  their 
knowledge  of  God,  or  of  divine  things,  either  from  nature,  or  from  the  contem¬ 
plation  of  the  works  of  creation,  but  from  tradition,  since  God  has  from  the 
beginning  revealed  himself  to  them.  Those  who  have  not  at  all  heard  of 
him,  are  not  likely  to  have  any  opinion  about  any  One  Deity.”  The  later 
Socinians  departed  more  or  less  from  these  strict  supernatural  views.* 

3  Respecting  the  views  of  Socinus  and  his  followers  about  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  see  the  subsequent  §§,  and  Fock's  Socianismus.  The  Socinians, 
however,  received  only  the  New  Test,  as  canonical ;  see  Catech.  Racov.  p.  1, 
and  Socinus,  De  Auctor.  S.  S.  c.  1,  p.  2*71,  quoted  by  Winer ,  pp.  32,  33. 
In  his  opinion  the  Old  Test,  has  only  a  historical  value,  but  its  dogmatic  and 
religious  importance  is  not  greater  than  that  which  other  Protestants  ascribe 
to  the  Apocrypha.  It  is  useful ,  but  not  necessary  to  be  read. 

4  Schlichting,  Diss.  del  Trin.  p.  70  :  Mysteria  divina  non  idcirco  mysteria 
dicuntur,  quod  etiam  revelata  omnem  nostrum  intellectum  captumve  tran- 
scendunt,  sed  quod  nonnisi  ex  revela tione  div.  cognosci  possunt.  Comp.  C. 
Zerrenner ,  neuer  Versuch  zur  Bestimmung  der  dogmatischen  Grundlehren 
von  OfFenbarung  und  heil.  Schrift  nach  den  socin.  Unitariern,  Jena,  1820,  8. 
Winer,  p.  39. 

5  Compare  below  the  §§  on  Christology.  As  the  Protestant  doctrine  of 
the  Scriptures  occupies  an  intermediate  position  between  the  Roman  Catho¬ 
lic  principle  and  that  of  the  Quakers  (§  241,  note  5),  so  it  holds  the 
medium  between  Quakerism  and  Socinianism,  i,  e,,  between  a  purely  in¬ 
ternal  supernatural  ism  of  feeling,  and  a  purely  external  supernaturalism 
of  the  understanding,  which  tends  to  rationalism.  The  principle  of  the 
Protestants  is  such  as  to  induce  them  to  combine  depth  with  clearness, 
fervor  with  sobriety.  It  must,  however,  be  admitted  that  this  principle  has 
not  been  always  carried  out  in  its  purity. 


§  243. 

FURTHER  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  CONCERNING  THE 

HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 

Inspiration  and  Interpretation. 

/ 

Though  the  Reformers  submitted  in  faith  to  the  authority  of 
Scripture  as  a  divine  revelation,  they  also  had  an  unprejudiced  re¬ 
gard  to  its  human  side,  taking  a  comprehensive  view  of  inspiration, 
especially  in  its  practical  bearing.1  But  the  Protestant  theologians 


*  “  The  idea  of  revelation  is  not  at  all  defined  in  the  symbolical  books,  and  the  earlier 
theologians  were  either  wholly  silent  on  the  subject,  or  gave  very  indistinct  definitions .”  D 
Wette ,  Dogmatik,  p.  32.  It  was  discussed  anew  in  the  controversy  with  the  Deists. 


§  243.  Inspiration  and  Interpretation. 


241 


of  later  times  frequently  manifested  such  a  narrow  adherence  to  the 
letter  of  Scripture,  that  in  opposition  to  the  less  rigid  views  of  Ar- 
minians2  and  Socinians,3  they  were  induced  to  hazard  the  most  hold 
assertions.4  The  orthodox  divines  also  developed  the  formal  aspect 
of  the  locus  de  Scriptural  while  the  mystics  reminded  men  that 
“  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life/'6  Spencr ,  in  particu¬ 
lar,  endeavoured  to  revive  the  Protestant  principle  of  Scripture  in 
its  practical  bearings,  and  thus  to  reconcile  the  spirit  with  the  letter, 
in  the  sense  of  true  Protestantism.7  The  Catholic  church  in  general, 
held  firmly  to  inspiration,  though  the  views  of  the  Jansenists  on  this 
point  were  stricter  than  those  of  the  Jesuits.8 — As  regards  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  theologians  of  all  denominations  em¬ 
ployed  (consciously  or  unconsciously)  the  allegorical  system,  together 
with  the  granrmatico-historical ;  hut  the  latter  was  frequently  dom¬ 
ineered  over  by  the  dogmatism  of  the  church  doctrines.9 — While  Cocce- 
jus  taught  that  every  passage  of  Scripture  was  pregnant  with  sense, 
the  example  of  the  Arminians  and  Socinians,  who  were  most  earnest 
for  a  moderate  intepretation,10  was  followed  by  others.11  Even  the 
Socinian  principle  that  revelation  can  not  contradict  reason,  was 
approved  of  by  some,  especially  toward  the  close  of  the  present 
period.12 

1  Luther  had  experienced  in  his  own  case  the  practical  blessings  of  the 
Scripture,  and  everywhere  shows  the  profoundest  reverence  for  the  Bible 
and  the  most  lively  sense  of  its  divine  blessedness,  and  of  its  peculiar  worth 
as  cRstinguished  from  other  writings.  So  that  he  does  not  scruple  to  say, 
that  we  must  look  upon  the  Scripture,  “  as  if  God  himself  had  spoken  therein” 
(against  Latonius,  in  Walch,  xviii.,  p.  1456)  ;  and  he  calls  the  Holy  Spirit 
“  the  most  clear  and  simple  writer  there  is  in  heaven  and  on  earth”  (  Walch , 
xviii.,  1602).  Once  he  terms  the  holy  word  of  Scripture  “God  himself” 
(Walch,  ix.,  688) . “To  sum  up  all,  the  Holy  Bible  is  the  most  excel¬ 

lent  and  best  book  of  God,  full  of  comfort  in  all  temptations ;  concerning 
faith,  hope,  and  love,  it  teaches  very  different  things  from  those  which  rea¬ 
son  can  see  and  feel,  comprehend  and  experience;  and  in  adversities  it  teaches 
how  Christian  virtues  are  to  shine  forth,  and  that  there  is  another  and  eternal 
life  beyond  this  poor  and  miserable  one.”  Tischreden  (Francf.,  1576),  fol.  1. 
Along  with  this  profound  reverence  for  Scripture,  he  also  expressed  himself 
very  freely  about  individual  writers ;  thus,  in  the  Preface  to  his  New  Test, 
about  the  Epistles  of  James  (epistola  straminea)  and  Jude,  about  the  Apoca¬ 
lypse,  etc.*  Comp,  the  Preface  to  W.  Linkens ,  Annotat.  liber  die  ftinf 

*  Of  special  importance  for  the  history  of  criticism  at  that  time  is  the  work  of  Oarlstadt , 
De  Canonicis  Scripturis,  written  in  1520,  edited  by  Credner  in  his  Zur  G-eschichte  des 
Kanons,  Halle,  1841.  Oarlstadt  found  Luther’s  opinion  about  James  reprehensible.  On 
the  other  hand  he  earnestly  defended  the  exclusion  of  the  Old  Testament  Apoclirypa  from 
the  canon ;  see  Jdger's  Oarlstadt,  p.  92  sq.  Brenz  agreed  with  Luther  about  the  Catholic 
Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse ;  but  like  Oarlstadt,  decidedly  rejected  the  Apocrypha  of  the 

16 


242 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Bucher  Moses :  “  And  doubtless  the  prophets  studied  Moses,  and  the  later 
prophets  studied  the  earlier  ones,  and  wrote  down  in  a  book  their  good 
thoughts ,  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  though  these  good  and  true 
teachers  and  searchers  sometimes  fell  upon  hay,  straw,  and  wood,  and  did 
not  build  of  pure  silver,  gold,  and  precious  stones  alone,  yet  the  foundation 
remains  ;  the  rest  will  be  burnt  up  by  the  fire  of  the  great  day,  as  St.  Paul 
says  (1  Cor.  iii.  13).”  In  another  place  he  says  (Walch,  vii.  2044)  : 
“Moses  and  the  prophets  preached,  but  in  them  ive  do  not  hear  God  himself ; 
for  Moses  received  the  law  from  the  angels,  and  so  had  a  less  high  order. 
When  now  I  hear  Moses,  enjoining  good  works,  I  hear  him  as  I  do  one, 
who  executes  the  orders  of  an  emperor  or  prince.  But  this  is  not  to  hear 
God  himself.  For  when  God  himself  talks  with  men,  they  cannot  hear 
anything  but  pure  grace,  pity,  and  all  that  is  good.”  That  Luther  concedes 
the  existence  of  historical  contradictions  ( e .  g.  between  the  Pentateuch  and 
Stephen’s  address),  is  shown  by  SchenJcel ,  ubi  supra,  i.  56.f  Compare  the 
passages  in  which  ho  distinctly  declares  that  Christ  is  above  the  Scripture  ; 
and  that  when  the  opponents  insist  upon  Scripture  against  Christ,  he  “  in¬ 
sists  upon  Christ  against  the  Scriptures”  {Walch,  viii.  2140,  and  xix.  1749, 
in  SchenJcel ,  226,  sq.). — Melancthon ,  too,  only  claims  freedom  from  error 
in  the  apostles  as  to  doctrine,  but  not  in  the  application  of  doctrine  (as 
in  the  difference  between  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  the  relation  of  Peter  to 
Paul  in  Antioch)  ;  see  his  Postil.  Part  II.,  p.  985.  Heppe  (p.  222),  says 
“  that  there  is  no  trace  in  Melancthon  of  a  proper  theory  of  inspiration  !” 
Zuingle  also  judged  of  Scripture  without  preconceived  notions,  and  con¬ 
sidered  the  principal  proof  of  its  Divine  origin  to  consist  in  the  practical  effects 

which  it  produces . “  Take  some  good  and  strong  wine ;  he  who  is  in 

good  health  enjoys  it,  for  it  renders  him  merry,  strengthens  him,  and  warms 
his  blood ;  but  he  who  is  suffering  from  pestilence  or  from  fever  may  not 
even  taste  it,  and  still  less  drink  it,  and  he  wonders  how  people  in  health  can 
drink  it.  But  that  is  not  on  account  of  the  wine,  but  on  account  of  his 
disease.  In  the  same  manner  the  Word  of  God  is  perfect  in  itself,  and  re¬ 
vealed  for  the  welfare  of  man ;  but  he  who  neither  loves  it,  nor  understands 
it,  nor  will  receive  it,  is  sick.  Thus  much  in  reply  to  those  who  daringly 
assert,  that  God  does  not  mean  his  Word  to  be  understood,  as  if  he  de¬ 
sired  to  exclude  us  from  its  light.”  (Deutsche  Schriften,  i.  p.  68.) — In  Cal¬ 
vin ,  on  the  other  hand,  we  find  very  strict  ideas  on  inspiration  ;  Instit.  I.  c. 
7,  4  :  Tenendum,  non  ante  stabiliri  doctrinse  fidem,  quam  nobis  indubie  per- 
suasum  sit,  auqtorem  ejus  esse  Deum.  He  appeals  to  the — testimonium 
Spiritus  Sancti.  Idem  ergo  Spiritus,  qui  per  os  prophetarum  loquutus  est,  in 
corda  nostra  penetret  necesse  est,  ut  persuadeat  fideliter  protulisse,  quod 
divinitus  erat  mandatum . Illius  (Spiritus  Sancti)  virtute  illuminati,  jam 

Old  Testament;  see  Heppe ,  p.  224.  Among  the  Lutheran  theologians,  Haffenreffer,  is  the 
last  who  walks  in  this  track,  he  calls  the  avTiXe-yo/ueva  of  the  New  Testament,  outright, 
■the  Libri  Nov.  Test.  Apocryphi ;  see  Heppe ,  p.  244.  On  the  views  of  the  Reformed  divi- 
mes,  see  Heppe ,  p.  254.  [Musculus,  Zanchius  and  Hyperius  mention  these  books  as  having 
less  external  corroboration  than  the  others  ;  though  enough  to  make  them  canonical.] 

■f  Bretschneider  collected  the  freer  statements  of  Luther  about  inspiration,  in  his  work, 
Luther  und  seine  Zeit,  1817,  pp.  97-99. 


■■ 


§  243.  Inspiration  and  Interpretation. 


243 


non  ant  nostro,  ant  aliorum  judicio  credimus,  a  Deo  esse  Scripturam ;  sed 
supra  humanum  judicium,  c<3rto  certius  constituimus  (non  secus  ac  si  ipsius 
Dei  numen  illic  intueremur),  hominum  ministerio  ab  ipsissimo  Dei  ore  ad 
nos  fuxisse.  Other  passages  in  SchenJcel ,  i.  62,  sq.  But  with  all  this,  Cal¬ 
vin  grants  a  difference  in  Scripture,  in  respect  to  form.  Instit.  I.  8,  1  : 
Lege  Demosthenem  ant  Ciceronem,  lege  Platonem,  Aristotelem,  aut  alios 
quosvis  ex  ilia  cohorte  ;  mirum  in  modum,  fateor,  te  allicient,  oblectabunt, 
movebunt,  rapient :  verum  inde  si  ad  sacram  istam  lectionem  te  conferas, 
velis  nolis  ita  vivide  te  afliciet,  ita  cor  tuum  penetrabit,  ita  medullis  insidebit, 
ut  prae  istius  sensus  efficacia  vis  ilia  rhetorum  ac  philosophorum  prOpe 
evanescat,  ut  promtum  sit  perspicere,  divinum  quiddam  spirare  sacras  scrip- 
turas ,  quae  omnes  humanae  industriae  dotes  ac  gratias  tanto  intervallo  supe- 
rent.  2  :  Fateor  quidem  Proplietis  nonnullis  elegans  et  nitidum,  imo  etiam 
splendidum  esse  dicendi  genus,  ut  profanis  scriptoribus  non  cedat  facundia,  ac 
talibus  exempiis  voluit  ostendere  Spir.  S.  non  srbi  defuisse  eloquentiam,  dum 
rudi  et  crasso  stilo  alibi  usus  est.  As  instances  he  adduces  David  and  Isaiah 
on  the  one  hand,  Amos,  Jeremiah,  and  Zechariah  (quorum  asperior  sermo 
rusticitatem  sapit)  on  the  other. 

2  Limborch.  Theol.  Christ,  i.  4,  10  :  De  inspiratione  Script.  S.  concludi- 
mus  hinc,  libros  hosce  a  viris  divinis  scriptos,  qui  non  tantum  non  errarunt, 
sed  et,  quia  spiritu  Dei  regebantur,  in  tradenda  voluntate  divina  errare  non 
potuerunt;  qui,  sicut  non  propria  voluntate,  sed  instinctu  Spiritus  S.  ad 
scribendum  se  accinxerunt  (2  Petr.  i.  21),  ita  etiam  in  scribendo  a  Spir.  S. 
directi  fuerunt  (2  Tim.  iii.  6),  adeo  ut  errorem  nullum  committere  potuerint, 
nec  in  sensu  ipso  exprimendo,  nec  in  verbis  sensum  continentibus  divinum 
conscribendis  aut  dictandis.  Si  qucedam  non  exacte  definiverint,  fuere  ea  non 
res  fidei  aut  praecepta  morum,  sed  rerum  majorum  parvae  circumstantiae,  ad 
fidem  fulciendam  nullum  habentes  momentum,  circa  quas  tamen  non  erra¬ 
runt  aut  memoria  lapsi  sunt,  solummodo  eas ,  quia  necesse  non  erat ,  accurate 
et  prcecise  non  deter minarunt. —  Grotius ,  indeed,  made  much  bolder  asser¬ 
tions  in  his  Votum  pro  Pace  ecclesiastica  (De  canonicis  scripturis. — Opp. 
Theol.  Amst.,  1679,  T.  iii.  p.  672)  : — Non  omnes  libros,  qui  sunt  in  hebraso 
Canone,  dictatos  a  Spir.  S. . .  .  scriptos  esse  cum  pio  animi  motu  non  nego. . . . 
sed  a  Spiritu  Sancto  dictari  historias  nihil  fuitopus. . . .  Vox  quoque  Spiritus 
Sancti  ambigua  est;  nam  gpt  significat. . . .  afflatum  divinum,  qualem  habuere 
turn  Prophetae  ordinarii,  turn  interdum  David  et  Daniel,  aut  significat  pium 
motum ,  sive  facultatem  impellentem  ad  loquendum  salutaria  vivendi  praecepta, 
vel  res  politicas  et  civiles,  etc.  (compare  the  subsequent  chapters  on  different 
readings,  etc.)  Episcopius  also  passed  judgment  with  much  freedom  on 
the  canon  (Institute  iv.  1,  4) :  In  hoc  volumine  continentur  varii  libelli,  non 
qui  singuli  singulas  religionis  christianae  particulas  in  se  habent,  et  conjuneti 
totam  religionem  christianam  complectuntur  ac  constituent ;  seu  veluti  partes 
essentiales  totum,  adeo  ut  si  unus  tantum  deficeret  aut  deesset,  religio  Christi 
tota  destruenda  et  plane  desitura  aut  defutura  esset ;  seu  veluti  partes  inte¬ 
grals,  ita  ut  librorum  istorum  uno  aut  pluribus  deficientibus  religio  Christi 
mutila  et  trunca  esset  futura.  Nihil  minus :  plures  enim  sunt  libelli,  qui 
nihil  continent,  quod  non  in  aliis  et  saepius  et  luculentius  reperitur ;  et  sunt, 
qui  nihil  ad  religionem  christianam  magnopere  faciens  continent.  Denique 


244 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


certum  est,  libellos  hos  in  codicem  sen  volui#en  unum  digestos  fuisse  non 
divino  jussu  aut  impulsu,  sed  consilio  studioque  humano,  licet  sancto  pioque, 
etc. — He  laid  great  stress  upon  the  fides  humana — viz.,  that  the  sacred  pen¬ 
men  both  would  and  could  speak  truth,  etc.  Comp.  c.  2. 

3  “  Socinianism ,  in  accordance  with  its  dualistic  and  mechanical  standpoint , 
could  not  regard  the  special  mode  of  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  any 
other  aspect  than  that  of  an  unmediated  interposition  of  the  divine  causality 
in  the  very  midst  of  human  individuality  ;  in  this  respect ,  Socinianism 
stands  on  the  same  position  with  the  older  Protestantism  and  Catholicism 
Fock ,  Socinianismus,  p.  329.  Thus  Socinus  says,  in  a  very  orthodox  way, 
that  the  sacred  writers  wrote — ab  ipso  divino  Spiritu  impulsi,  eoque  dictante 
(Lectiones  Sacrae,  p.  287  ;  in  Fock ,  ubi  supra).  Yet  he  restricts  inspiration 
to  what  is  essential,  and  concedes  slight  errors  in  what  is  unessential  (leviter 
errare)  ;  see  the  passages  in  Fock ,  p.  332  ;  and  Socinus  De  Auctoritate 
Scripturae,  Racov.,  1611  (Opera,  i.  p.  263,  sq.) 

4  The  Consensus  Repetitus  Fidei  verse  Lutheranae  (ed.  Henke ,  p.  5),  as¬ 

serts  against  Calixt,  Punct.  6  :  Profitemur  et  docemus,  omnia  scripta  pro- 
phetica  et  apostolica  dici  divina,  quia  a  Deo  ceu  fonte  sunt  et  divinities 
tradita  veritas,  nihilque  in  illis  inveniri,  quod  Deum  non  habeat  auctorem, 
vel  Deo  inspirante,  suggerente  et  dictante  non  sit  scriptum,  testibus  Paulo, 
1  Cor.  iii.  13  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  16  ;  et  Petro,  2  Pet.  1,  20.  Rejicimus  eos,  qui 
docent,  scripturam  dici  divinam,  non  quod  singula,  quae  in  ea  continentur, 
divinse  peculiari  revelationi  imputari  oporteat,  sed  quod  praecipua,  sive  quae 
primario  et  per  se  respicit  ac  intendit  scriptura,  nempe  quae  redemptionem 
et  salutem  generis  humani  concernunt,  nonnisi  divinae  illi  peculiari  revela¬ 
tioni  debeantur.  (Even  passages  like  2  Tim.  iv.  13,  form  no  exceptions.) 
This  rigid  adherence  to  the  very  letter  of  Scripture  (grammatolatry)  mani¬ 
fested  itself  especially  in  the  Formula  Consensus,  1 :  Deus  O.  M.  verbum 
suum,  quod  est  potentia  ad  salutem  omni  credenti  (Rom.  i.  16),  non  tantum 
per  Mosen,  Prophetas  et  Apostolos  scripto  mandari  curavit,  sed  etiam  pro  eo 
scripto  paterae  vigilavit  hactenus  et  excubavit,*  ne  Satanae  astu  vel  fraude 
ulla  humana  vitiari  posset.  Proinde  merito  singulari  ejus  gratiae  et  bonitati 
Ecclesia  acceptum  refert,  quod  habet  habebitque  ad  finem  mundi  sermonem 
propheticum  firmissimum  ;  nec  non  lepd  ypaygara,  sacras  litteras,  ex  quibus, 
pereunte  coelo  et  terra,  ne  apex  quidem  vel  iota  unicum  peribit  (2  Pet.  v. 
19,  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  Matth.  v.  18).  2:  In  specie  autem  hebra’icusV.  T.  codex, 

quem  traditione  Ecclesiae  judaicae,  cui  olim  oracula  Dei  commissa  sunt 
(Rom.  iii.  2),  accepimus  hodieque  retinemus,  turn  quoad  consonas ,  turn  quoad 
vocalia  sive  puncta  ipsa  sive  punctorum  saltern  potestatem,  et  turn  quoad 
res ,  turn  quoad  verba  deonvevorog ,  ut  fidei  et  vitae’  nostrae,  una  cum  Codice 
N.  T.  sit  Canon  unicus  et  illibatus,  ad  cujus  normam  ceu  Lydium  lapidem 
universae  quae  extant  versiones,  sive  orientales  'sive  occidentales,  exigendae, 
et  sicubi  deflectunt,  revocandae  sunt.  (But  compare  Schweizery  Die  theol. 
ethischen  Zustande,  p.  37). — The  Lutheran  theologians  also  maintained  that 
the  Hebrew  vowel  points  were  original ;  Job.  Gerh.  Loci  Theol.  i.  c.  14,  15  ; 

*  How  much  this  mere  watching  and  guarding  of  a  dead  treasure  is  in  accordance  with 
their  lifeless  notions  of  God,  and  the  relation  in  which  he  stands  to  the  world,  is  evident. 
Nothing  creative,  either  in  the  one  case  or  the  other! 


§  243.  Inspiration  and  Interpretation. 


245 


Quenst.  i.  272,  ss.,  and  Hollaz.  Prol.  iii.  Quaest.  xliii.  and  others. — The  con¬ 
troversies  respecting  the  purity  of  the  Greek  of  the  New  Test,  belong  to  the 
same  class  (Purists  and  Hebraists)  ;  see  Winer ,  Grammatik  des  neutesta- 
mentlichen  Sprachidioms,  Einleitung,  and  Gass,  ubi  supra,  159.  In  the  year 
1714,  G.  Nitscli  (who  died  1729,  superintendent  in  Gotha),  even  raised  the 
question  whether  the  Holy  Scripture  was  God  himself  or  a  creature  ?  See 
Walcli ,  Relig.  Streitigkeiten  innerhalb  d.  evang.  Kirch e,  iii.  p.  145,  and  i. 
p.  966.  Tholuck,  ubi  supra,  p.  253,  sq. 

5  Thus  the  idea  of  inspiration  was  more  precisely  defined ;  it  was  at  first 
identified  with  revelation  but  afterwards  treated  of  by  itself  (see  Heppe,  p. 
250).  Comp.  Gerhard,  Loci  i.  c.  12.  §  12  :  causa  efficiens  Scripturae  Sacrse 
principalis  est  Dens.  §  18  :  Causae  instrumentalis  fuerunt  sancti  homines. 
Scripserunt  non  ut  homines,  sed  ut  Dei  homines  h.  e.  ut  Dei  servi  et  peculi- 
aria  Dei  organa.  Hollaz ,  Prol.  iii.,  Qu.  vi.,  p.  75. . . .  :  Sicut  scriptura ,  quam 
homo  alteri  in  calamum  dictat,  recte  dicitur  verbum  humanum  in  litteras 
relatum,  ita  Scriptura  a  Deo  inspirata  verissime  dicitur  verbum  Dei  litteris 
consignatum.  Quaest.  xvi.  :  Conceptus  omnium  rerum,  quae  in  sacris  litteris 
habentur,  prophetis  et  apostolis  a  Spir.  S.  immediate  inspirati  sunt.  Qu.  xviii.: 
Omnia  et  singula  verba,  quae  in  sacro  codice  leguntur,  a  Spir.  S.  prophetis  et 
apostolis  inspirata  et  in  calamum  dictata  sunt.  Compare  other  passages 
quoted  by  De  Wette ,  Dogmatik,  and  Hase,  Hutterus  Redivivus.— The  divin¬ 
ity  of  Scripture  was  founded  partly  npon  the  fides  divina  (the  testimony  of 
the  Holy  Spirit),  and  partly  .upon  the  fides  humana  ( avdevria  and  a^Lo- 
moria) ;  it  then  served  in  its  turn  as  the  source  from  which  the  so-called 
affectiones  Sacrce  Scripturce  were  derived.  These  were :  I.  Affect,  prima- 
riae:  1.  divina  auctoritas,  2.  veritas,  3.  perfectio,  4.  perspicuitas  (semetip- 
sam  interpretandi  facultas),  5.  efficacia  divina;  II.  secundariae:  1.  necessitas, 
2.  integritas  et  perennitas,  3.  puritas  et  sinceritas  fontium,  4.  authentica 
dignitas.  Attention  was  also  directed  to  the  simplicitas  et  majestas  stili,  etc. 
Comp.  Gerhard ,  Loci  1.  c.,  Calov.  Systema  T.  i.,  p.  528  ss.,  and  the  other 
compendiums  of  systematic  theology.  (See  Hase,  Hutterus  Redivivus,  p.  99 
ss.,  De  Wette,  p.  39.)  Compare  Gass,  Geschicte  d.  Theologie,  p.  235  sq. 
Heppe ,  Dogmatik  des  deutschen  Protest,  i.  240  sq. 

6  Luther  was  no  stranger  to  the  thought,  that  the  external  word  alone  is 
not  sufficient,  but  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  working  internally  in  the  hearts  of 
the  readers  (hearers)  is  needed  to  produce  a  right  understanding  of  the 
Scriptures:  see  his  Letters  in  De  Wette' s  edition,  v.,  p.  85,  No.  1784  ;  and 
the  passages  cited  by  Heppe,  p.  235.  The  later  orthodox  theology,  too, 
was  familiar  with  the  idea  of  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  see  Klaiber , 
Die  Lehre  der  altprotestant.  Dogmatiker  von  dem  Testimonium  Spiritus 
Sancti,  und  ihre  dogmatische  Bedentung,  in  the  Jahrbiicher  fur  deutsche 
Theologie,  1857.  But  the  mystics  of  the  Protestant  church  were  the  chief 
opponents  of  the  literal  orthodoxy.  Thus  Jacob  Hohme  said:  “Though 
reason  may  cry :  Give  me  only  the  letter  of  Scripture,  yet  the  external  letter 
does  not  impart  sufficient  knowledge,  although  it  may  guide  us  in  our  re¬ 
searches  ;  the  living  letter  also,  which  is  the  independent  and  revealed  word, 
and  nature  of  God,  must  through  the  medium  of  the  revealed  word,  be  laid 
open  and  read  in  the  man,  who  is  taught  and  instructed  by  the  Holy  Ghost 


246 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


himself;”  in  the  preface  to  his  work:  Yon  der  Geburt  und  Bezeichnung  aller 
Wesen,  quoted  by  Umbreit,  in  his  Jakob  Bohm,  p.  66. — Previous  to  the 
time  of  Bohme,  Sebastian  Frank  of  Word  (who  lived  in  the  sixteenth  cen¬ 
tury)  had  maintained  that  “  the  devil  himself  may  be  well  versed  in  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  even  adhere  to  its  very  letter,  as  he  is  now  doing  in  the  case  of  so 
many  sects  which  have  nothing  in  their  favor  but  mere  Scripture,  etc., 
quoted  by  Umbreit ,  1.  c.,  p.  60;  see  §  241.  Weigel ,  Postille,  vol.  ii.,  pp. 
62,  63  ;  iii.,  p.  84,  says  :  “  Scripture,  as  such,  is  a  dead  letter,  and  an  empty 
word,  which  sounds  through  the  air ;”  and  in  another  work,  entitled  Gulden 
Griff,  c.  19  :  “  It  is  not  enough  to  say,  here  is  such  a  writer,  and  he  has  the 
Holy  Spirit,  he  can  not  make  a  mistake.  My  dear  friend  !  first  of  all  prove 
the  truth  of  thy  statement ;  thou  wilt  find  it  a  difficult  work  to  prove  and 
demonstrate  it.  Who  is  Cephas  ?  who  is  Paul  ?  says  the  apostle  ;  who  is 
this  man  or  that?  They  are  all  men.  It  is  God ,  God ,  God  alone,  who  works 
by  faith,  and  imparts  judgment  to  try  the  spirits  and  discern  the  writings  ;” 
comp.  Walcli ,  Einleitung  in  die  Religionsstreitigkeiten,  vol  iv.,  p.  1044,  45. 
In  the  same  manner  Christian  Hoburg  (quoted  by  Hollaz,  ed.  Teller,  p.  Vo) 
expressed  himself  as  follows  :  Scripture,  is  an  old,  cold  and  dead  thing,  which 
makes  men  mere  Pharisees.” — Arad,  Wahr'es  Christenthum,  p.  28,  used  more 
moderate  language,  but  more  to  the  point:  “God  did  not  reveal  his  Holy  Word 
that  it  might  remain  a  dead  letter,  but  that  it  might  become  a  living  power 
within  us,  and  create  in  us  an  entirely  new  and  spiritual  nature,  otherwise  it 
is  of  no  use.  All  that  Scripture  teaches  externally  must  be  worked  into  man 
through  Christ,  in  the  spirit  and  in  faith.”  Ibid.,  p.  89  ;  “  The  living  Christ 
is  the  book  ivhich  we  must  ready  and  from  which  ive  must  learn f  On  the 
Bothmann  controversy  about  the  efficacy  of  the  word  of  the  Bible,  see  Cotta , 
Prsef.  in  Gerhard,  p.  24  ;  Walch,  Einleitung  in  die  Religionstreitigkeiten  der 
Lutherischen  Kirche,  i.,  p.  524  sq ;  Gass ,  ubi  supra,  p.  265. 

7  Spener  agreed  with  the  mystics  in  this,  that  the  dead  letter  avails 
nothing.  But  he  opposed  quite  as  decidedly  the  preeminence  assigned  to  the 
Spirit  without  Scripture.  Thus  he  said,  in  opposition  to  the  notions  of  the 
Quakers:  “Our  feelings  are  not  the  norm  of  truth,  but  divine  truth  is  the 
norm  of  our  feelings.  This  rule  of  truth  exists  in  the  Divine  Word  apart 
from  ourselves  ;”  see  the  passages  quoted  by  Hennicke ,  pp.  6  and  V. — Con¬ 
cerning  the  right  of  the  laity  to  read  and  search  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  he 
expressed  himself  as  follows  (Geistliches  Priesterthum,  Francfort,  1677,  p. 
29)  :  “  Since  the  epistle  of  our  heavenly  Father  is  addressed  to  all  his  child¬ 
ren,  no  child  of  God  is  to  be  excluded  from  its  perusal ;  all  have  not  only 
this  right,  but  are  also  commanded  to  read  it.”  “  They  must  also  search 
the  Scriptures  that  they  may  be  enabled  to  examine  the  doctrine  of  their 
minister,  in  order  that  their  faith  may  not  be  founded  upon  the  authority 
and  testimony  of  men,  but  upon  divine  truth.”  But  Spener  made  special 
efforts  to  render  the  Bible  practical,*  both  among  the  people  (by  a  more 

*  Spener  thought  it  even  desirable  (p.  38)  that  the  laity  should  study  Greek  and  He* 
brew,  “  to  be  enabled  to  understand  the  revelations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  own  lan¬ 
guage;”  nevertheless,  “  the  want  of  acquaintance  with  foreign  languages  does  not  exclude 
pious  Christians  from  a  true  knowledge  of  that  which  God  has  deemed  necessary  for  the 
edification  of  their  souls.” 


§  243.  Inspiration  and  Interpretation. 


2-47 


popular  interpretation  of  Scripture),  and  among  theologians  by  liis  Collegia 
Biblica.  See  his  Pia  Desideria  (Francf.  1712,)  p.  94  ss. 

8  The  Universities  of  Louvain  and  Douay  condemned  (a.  d.  1588)  the 
position  of  the  Jesuits,  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  all  the 
words  of  Scripture  are  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  A  controversy  respect¬ 
ing  inspiration  was  carried  on  (a.  d.  1622)  between  the  Jansenists  and  the 
Jesuit  Jean  Adam.  In  his  opinion  the  sacred  penmen  have  sometimes  made 
exaggerated  statements;  on  the  whole,  it  is  by  no  means  necessary  to  take 
everything  in  Scripture  in  its  most  literal  sense.  The  Jansenists  showed  the 
dangerous  tendency  of  such  assertions.  Reuchlin,  Geschichte  von  Port- 
Royal,  i.,  p.  613  ss. — In  opposition  to  the  Protestant  doctrine  concerning 
Scripture,  JBellarmine  maintained  (De  Verbo  Dei,  iv.,  4) :. . . .  Apostolos  non 
de  scribendo ,  sed  de  prcedicando  Evangelio  primaria  intentione  cogitasse. 
Praeterea,  si  doctrinam  suam  litteris  consignare  ex  proffesso  voluissent,  certe 
catechismum  aut  similem  librum  confecissent.  At  ipsi  vel  historiam  scrip- 
serunt,  ut  Evangelistse,  vel  epistolas  ex  occasione  aliqua,  ut  Petrus,  Paulus,  Jaco¬ 
bus  etc.,  et  in  iis  nonnisi  obiter  [?]  disputationes  de  dogmatibus  tractavcrunt. 
— He  rejected  the  testimony  of  Scripture  in  favor  of  inspiration,  as  a  testi¬ 
mony  in  its  own  cause  ;  not  only  the  Bible,  but  also  the  Koran,  claims  inspi¬ 
ration  !  He  further  maintained  that  there  is  no  sure  criterion  for  the 
canonicity  of  the  separate  books  in  Scripture  itself,  etc.* — Nor  were  the  crit¬ 
ical  investigations  of  Richard  Simon  reconcilable  with  the  idea  of  verbal 
inspiration.  Compare  his  Traite  de  1’Inspiration  des  Livres  sacres.  Rotterd. 
1687. 

9  On  the  difference  betweeen  the  hermeneutical  principles  of  the  Protest- 
tants,  and  those  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  see  above,  §  240,  notes  6  and  7. 
For  further  particulars  compare  Clausen,  Hermeneutik,  p.  277  ss. 

10  Liber  de  potentise  S.  S. — Comp.  Aphorismi  contra  Pontificios.  Ani- 
madversiones  in  Bellarmini  controversias.  His  main  principle  was,  M  that 
the  words  of  Scripture  must  everywhere  be  supposed  to  signify  just  as  much 
as  they  may  signify .”  In  essential  opposition  to  the  principle  of  Arminians 
and  Socinians,  acording  to  which  every  passage  is  to  be  considered  separately 
and  in  its  historical  limits  (so  that  passages  are  not  to  be  adduced  in  paral¬ 
lelism,  by  the  analogy  of  faith),  Coccejus  endeavoured  to  treat  the  various 
books  of  the  Bible  as  connected  parts  of  a  greater  whole,  so  that  the  one  is 
reflected  by  the  other.  Comp.  Clausen ,  Hermeneutik,  p.  282,  ss.  It  is  a 
well-known  saying:  Grotium  nusquam  in  sacris  litteris  (V.  T.)  invenire 
Christum,  Coccejum  ubique. — Some  orthodox  divines,  like  Calov ,  inveighed 
with  all  earnestness  against  the  emancipation  of  exegesis  from  dogmatics ; 
see  Gass ,  p.  164,  sq.  Hyperius,  among  the  Reformed  divines,  made  some 
concessions  to  the  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation ;  see  Heppe ,  p.  253. 

11  e.  g.  Turretine ,  Werenfels,  and  others.  The  skeptical  sentence  of 
Werenfels  is  well  known  : 

Hie  liber  est,  in  quo  sna  quaerit  dogmata  quisque, 

Invenit,  et  iterum  dogmata  quisque  sua. 

*  To  refute  Calvin  (Institt.  vii,  12),  in  whose  view  the  Sacred  Scriptures  are  distm 
guished  from  profane  writings,  as  light  from  darkness,  and  sweet  from  sour,  he  adduced 
the  opinion  of  Luther,  who  called  the  Epistle  of  James  a  straw  Epistle. 


248 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


12  Thus  Becker  (Die  bezauberte  Welt,  preface,  p.  11,  ss.),  represented  rea¬ 
son  as  preceding  Scripture,  but  maintained  that  they  did  not  contradict  each 
other.  “  To  say  the  truth,  reason  must  precede  Scripture,  because  Scripture 
presupposes  reason  ;  I  mean  sound  reason,  to  which  Scripture  must  prove  its 
divine  origin.  Reason  exists  along  with  Scripture,  speaking  of  things  con¬ 
cerning  which  the  latter  is  silent.  Scripture  exists  along  with  reason,  be¬ 
cause  it  teaches  us  something  very  different,  which  does  not  belong  to  the 
province  of  reason.  And,  lastly,  Scripture  is,  nevertheless,  above  reason, 
not  as  lord  and  master  (for  each  has  its  respective  office),  but  because  it 

possesses  greater  dignity  and  larger  means . But  at  times  it  happens 

that  they  meet  by  the  way,  or  have  a  meeting  in  some  house,  and  thus 
assist  each  other ;  both  remain,  however,  free,  with  this  difference  only, 
that  reason,  acknowledging  its  inferiority,  always  pays  deference  to  Scrip¬ 
ture.” 

Though  Protestants  were  accustomed  to  consider  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament 
as  constituting  the  one  norm  of  faith,  it  was  natural  that  the  material  principle  of 
faith,  as  seen  in  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  should  exert  a  re¬ 
action  upon  the  formal,  and  render  necessary  some  kind  of  subordination  of  the  Old 
Testament  to  the  New  (of  the  law  to  the  gospel.)  The  symbolical  books  make  a  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  ceremonial  and  the  moral  law.  The  former  had  typical  significance, 
and  is  already  fulfilled ;  the  latter  partly  shows  us  the  nature  of  sin  (as  in  a  mirror),  and 
partly  is  still  of  importance  as  a  rule  of  life.  Comp.  Articles  of  Smalcald,  Art.  2,  p.  319  ; 
Apol.  p.  83;  Confess.  Gallic.  Art.  23;  Belg.  25;  Helv.  II.,  c.  12,  13. — In  reference  to 
the  Antinomian  controversy  (§  217,  note  7),  started  by  John  Agricola,  of  Eisleben,  see  the 
Formula  Concordise,  Art.  5  and  6  (de  tertio  usu  legis). — But  it  can  not  well  be  said  that 
the  law  and  the  gospel  are  identical,  the  one  with  the  Old,  the  other  with  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament;  for  the  prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament  partake  of  the  nature  of  the  gospel, 
while  the  New  Testament  contains  moral  precepts.  See  the  preface  of  Luther  to  his 
translation  of  the  New  Testament,  1522.  On  this  whole  section,  see  Schenkel,  i.,  165  sq. 

§  244. 

RELATION  OF  SCRIPTURE  TO  TRADITION. 

Compare  the  works  of  Schmid  and  Gass,  on  Calixt,  referred  to  in  §  237.  [Heinrich  Julius 
Holtzmann ,  Kanon  und  Tradition,  Ein  Beitrag  zur  neueren  Dogmengeschichte  und  ~ 
Symbolik,  Ludwigsburg,  1859.  J.  L.  Jacobi ,  Lehre  von  der  Tradition,  i.,  Berk 
1847.] 

♦ 

With  all  its  adherence  to  the  authority  of  Scripture,  Protestant¬ 
ism  could  not  absolutely  withdraw  itself  from  the  power  of  tradition.1 
For  even  the  authority  of  Scripture  rested  upon  the  belief  of  the 
church.  The  whole  historical  development  could  not  be  ignored  ; 
and  the  reformers  had  no  hesitation  in  respect  to  ecclesiastical  usages 
in  particular,  to  concede  to  tradition  a  certain  normal,  though  only 
human,  authority.2  But  even  in  relation  to  the  fundamental  doc¬ 
trines  of  Christianity,  Protestantism  declared  its  agreement  with  the 
oldest  creeds  of  the  church,  because  it  believed  that  the  pure  doctrine 
of  Scripture  was  contained  in  them  ;  yet  without  thinking  it  to  he 


§  244.  Relation  of  Scripture  to  Tradition. 


249 


necessary,  or  even  advisable,  to  give  these  symbols  special  authority  as 
coordinate  with  the  Scriptures.3  Accordingly,  when  George  Ccilixt, 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  advocated  the  position  that  the  consensus 
of  the  ancient  church  should  be  taken  as  an  authority  alongside  of 
the  Scriptures,4  he  aroused  a  lively  opposition.6  But  with  all  its 
theoretical  opposition  to  any  other  authority  than  that  of  Scripture, 
Protestantism  soon  came  to  be  dependent  upon  its  own  tradition  ; 
for  the  words  of  Luther,  and  the  declarations  of  the  confessions  of 
faith,  became  (as  it  was  not  intended  they  should  be)  a  standard 
and  restraint  in  the  subsequent  exegetical  and  doctrinal  develop¬ 
ment.6 

1  Comp.  Winer  ;  Comparat.  Darstellung,  p.  33.  MarheineTce ,  Symbolik,  ii. 
191,  sq.  Sehenkel ,  Wesen  des  Protest.,  i.  40,  sq. 

2  As  in  the  case  of  the  baptism  of  children,  and  several  other  observances, 
like  the  celebration  of  Sunday  and  the  church  festivals.  Accordingly  the 
XXXIX.  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  declare  (in  Art.  xxxiv.) :  “It 
is  not  necessary  that  Traditions  and.  Ceremonies  be  in  all  places  one,  and 
utterly  like  ;  for  at  all  times  they  have  been  divers,  and  may  be  changed 
according  to  the  diversities  of  countries,  times,  and  men’s  manners,  so  that 
nothing  is  ordained  against  God's  Word.  Whosoever,  through  his  private 
judgment,  willingly  and  purposely,  doth  openly  break  the  traditions  and 
ceremonies  of  the  Church,  ivhich  be  not  repugnant  to  the  Word  of  God ,  and 
be  ordained  and  approved  by  common  authority,  ought  to  be  rebuked  openly 
(that  others  may  fear  to  do  the  like),  as  he  that  offendeth  against  the  com¬ 
mon  order  of  the  Church,  and  hurteth  the  authority  of  the  magistrate,  and 
woundeth  the  conscience  of  the  weak  brethren. — Every  particular  or  na¬ 
tional  Church  hath  authority  to  ordain,  change,  and  abolish  ceremonies  or 
rites  of  the  church,  ordained  only  by  man's  authority ,  so  that  all  things  be 
done  to  edifying.”  To  the  same  effect,  Luther  in  his  Letters  ( De  Wette's 
edition,  iii.  294)  ;  Nullas  ceremonias  damno,  nisi  quae  pugnent  cum  evan- 

gelio  ;  ceteras  omnes  in  ecclesia  nostra  servo  integras . Nullos  magis  odi 

quam  eos,  qui  ceremonias  liberas  et  innoxias  exturbant,  et  necessitatem  ex 
libertate  faciunt. 

3  Thus  the  three  oecumenical  symbols,  the  Apostles’  Creed,  the  Nicene, 
and  the  Athanasian,  were  adopted  by  the  Protestant  chureh,  and  introduced 
by  the  Lutherans  into  their  Book  of  Concord.  Melancthon  terms  these  creeds 
(in  his  Enarr.  Svmb.) — breves  repetitiones  doctrinae,  in  scriptis  propheticis 
et  apostolicis  traditae.  The  Second  Helvetic  Confession  refers  to  the  Con¬ 
fession  of  Faith  of  the  Roman  bishop  Damasus  (in  Jerome) ;  which  is 
printed  in  the  older  editions  of  the  Helvetic  Confession,  and  in  Fritzsche’s 
ed.,  pp.  9,  10. 

4  Calixt  defends  himself  against  the  accusation,  of  not  regarding  the 
Scripture  as  sufficient,  of  holding  that  it  is  not — unum,  primum  et  summum 
principium.  He  finds  in  tradition  only  the  testimony  of  the  church  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Scriptures.  Yet  still  he  speaks  of  two  principles  ;  e.  g .,  in 
his  De  Arte  Nova,  p.  49  :  Duo  vero  sunt  principia,  quae  tamquam  certissima 


250 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symboljsm. 


et  extra  omnem  dubitationis  aleam  posita  utrimqu$  admittimns,  quas  etiam 
sufficere  credimus — divince  legis  auctoritas ,  turn  deinde  ecchsice  catholicce 
traditio .  By  tradition  he  means  the  consensus  primsevse  vel  priscse  an- 
tiquitatis;  see  his  letter  to  the  Landgrave  Ernest,  p.  22  :  Nos  principium 
primum  ponimus  :  quid  quid  Sacra  Scriptura  docet,  est  verum  ;  proximum 
ad  hoc  :  quidquid  primorum  quinque  seculorum  ecclesia  unanimiter  pro- 
fessus  est,  est  verum.  Pag.  23  :  Quae  autem  nisce  symbolis,  confessionibus 
et  declarationibus  comprehenduntur,  e  sacra  Scriptura  hausta  sunt.  See 
other  passages  in  Schmid ,  Dogmatik  d.  luth.  Kirch e,  p.  124.  Gass ,  p.  46 
sq .  [See  also,  Gieseler ,  Church  Hist.,  New  York  ed.  iv.,  §  52.] 

5  Calov  was  his  chief  opponent,  in  his  work  Syncretismus  Calixtinus,  and 
in  other  writings;  see  Schmid ,  p.  240,  sq.  Gass ,  p.  87.  [Schweizer,  Cen¬ 
tral  Dogmen.  ii.  532,  <?<?.]  The  Fifth  point  in  the  Consensus  Repetitus  Fidei 
Yerae  Luth.  (in  Henke’s  ed.  p.  5),  was  directed  against  him :  Rejicimus  eos, 
qui  docent,  testimonium  ecclesiae  necessarium  esse  ad  cognoscendum  Dei 
verbum,  ita  ut  sine  illo  per  alia  Kpirr)pi,a  cognosci  nequeat ;  anctoritatem 
sacr.  litterarum  aliunde  non  constare,  nisi  e  testificatione  ecclesiae  etc.  Comp. 
Punct.  6-8. 

6  It  is  well-known  that  Luther  strongly  protested  against  any  prominence 
being  given  to  his  name,  and  all  appeal  to  his  authority.  Equally  opposed 
was  it  to  the  spirit  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  to  impose  it  as  a  yoke  upon  the 
conscience.  The  First  Confession  of  Basle  solemnly  warns  against  this,  at 
the  conclusion  :  “  In  fine,  we  submit  this  our  Confession  to  the  judgment  of 
the  divine  writings  of  Scripture,  beseeching  that  if  we  are  better  instructed 
from  the  Holy  Scripture,  we  may  at  all  times  obey  God  and  his  word  with 
great  thankfulness.  Comp.  Conf.  Helv.  II.  and  Confess.  Scotica,  at  the  close 
of  the  Preface.  The  Lutheran  Formula  Concordise  also  says  distinctly,  p.  372  : 

Casterum  autem  Symbola  et  alia  scripta . non  obtinent  auctoritatem 

judicis  ;  hsec  enim  dignitas  solis  sacris  litteris  debetur  ;  sed  duntaxat  pro 
religione  nostra  testimonium  dicunt  eamque  explicant,  ac  ostendunt,  quomodo 
singulis  temporibus  sacrae  litterae  in  articulis  controversis  in  ecclesia  Dei  a 
doctoribus,  qui  turn  vixerunt,  intellectae  et  explicate  fuerint,  et  quibus  ra- 
tionibus  dogmata  cum  sacra  Scriptura  pugnantia  rejecta  et  condemnata  sint. 
— On  the  other  hand,  the  Formula  Consensus,  Art.  26,  brings  the  Holy 
Scripture  (the  Word  of  God)  into  such  connection  with  the  Confessions, 
that  they  seem  to  put  on  one  and  the  same  line.  See  also  the  Conclusions 
of  the  Canons  of  Dort.  [But  these  Conclusions  simply  say  :  “  This  doctrine, 
the  synod  judges  to  be  drawn  from  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  be  agreeable 
to  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformed  churches  and  it  warns  people  to  “  ab¬ 
stain  from  all  those  phrases,  which  exceed  the  limits  necessary  to  be  ob¬ 
served  in  ascertaining  the  genuine  sense  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.”]  On  the 
history  of  the  matter,  see  J.  C.  G.  Johannsen ,  Die  Aufange  des  Symbol- 
zwanges  unterden  Protestanten,  Lpz..  1847. 


SECOND  DI  VISON. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  JUSTIFICATION,  AND  THE  ECONOMY  OF 

REDEMPTION. 

(MATERIAL  PRINCIPLE.) 

A.  ANTHROPOLOGY. 

§  245. 

MAN  PRIOR  TO  THE  FALL. 

[Bishop  George  Bull,  Concerning  the  first  Covenant,  and  the  State  of  Man  before  the  FalL 

Works,  ii.  p.  B 2-2 37.] 

During  the  present  period,  the  opinion  generally  prevailed,  among 
Christians  of  all  denominations,  that  the  state  of  our  first  parents 
was  more  excellent,  both  in  respect  to  body  and  soul,  prior  to  the 
fall,  than  after  it.1  But  while  theologians  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  agreed  with  the  majority  of  the  scholastics  in  regarding  the 
original  righteousness  of  man  as  a  donum  superadditum,2  Protest¬ 
ants  (Lutherans  as  well  as  Calvinists)  maintained  that  God  created 
man  in  the  possession  of  perfect  righteousness  and  holiness,3  quali¬ 
ties  which,  together  with  immortality,  belonged  to  his  original  nature. 
Arminians *  and  Socinians ,5  entertained  less  exalted  opinions  con¬ 
cerning  the  original  state  of  man.  The  latter  asserted,  that  the 
image  of  God,  after  which  man  was  created,  has  reference  only  to 
his  dominion  over  animals,  or  the  irrational  creation  in  general,  and 
denied  that  immortality  belonged  to  the  original  endowments  of 
human  nature. d 

1  Cone.  Trid.  sess.  5  :  Si  quis  non  confitetur,  primum  hominem. . .  .  sane- 
titatem  et  justitiam,  in  qua  constitutus  fuerat,  amisisse  incurrisseque  mortem, 
qnam  antea  illi  comminatus  fuerat  Deus,  anathema  sit.  (This  was  in  accord- 
dance  with  the  definitions  of  the  Protestant  Symbols,  see  note  3.)  Comp, 
the  Confess.  Orthod.  of  the  Greek  Church,  p.  50,  quoted  by  Winer, 
p.  51. 


252 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


2  Cat.  Rom.  i.  2,  19  . . .  Originalis  justitice  admirabile  donum  addidit , 

ac  deinde  cseteris  animantibus  praeesse  voluit.  This  is  more  fully  developed 
by  Jdellarmine ,  Tom.  iv.,  De  Gratia  primi  bom.,  c.  2.,  Propos.  4  :  Integritas 
ilia,  cum  qua  primus  homo  conditus  fuit  et  sine  qua  post  ejus  lapsum  hominis 
omnes  nascunter,  non  fuit  naturalis  ejus  conditio,  sed  supernaturalis  evectio. 
Comp.  c.  5  . .  .Quare  non  magis  differt  status  hominis  post  lapsum  Adm 

a  statu  ejusdem  in  puris  naturalibus,  quam  differt  spoliatus  a  nudo.  In  the 
following  chapter,  the  justitia  originalis  is  compared  to  the  hair  of  Samson, 
to  a  festive  garment  and  ornament,  etc-.*  c.  6 :  Yirtutes  non  erant  insitse 
et  impress^  ipsi  naturae,  ut  sunt  dona  naturalia,  sed  extrinsecus  assutae  et 
superadditae,  ut  sunt  dona  supernaturalia.  c.  7  :  The  dowry  of  Paradise  was 
splendid,  while  that  of  nature,  in  its  present  condition,  is  like  a  stepmother’s 
dowry,  (appealing  to  Augustine).  Comp.  Marheineke ,  Symbolik,  Vol.  iii., 
towards  the  commencement ;  Mohler ,  Symbolik,  §  1 ;  Jdaur,  Katholicismus 
und  Protestantismus,  p.  60  ss. 

3  Luther  himself  gave  it  as  his  opinion  (in  Gen.  c.  3 — Opp.  ed.  Jen.  T.  i., 

p.  83,  quoted  by  Mohler,  p.  35.)  ;  Justitiam  non  fuisse  quoddam  donum, 
quod  ab  extra  accederet,  separatum  a  natura  hominis  sed  fuisse  vere  natura- 
lem,  ut  natura  Adse  esset  diligere  Deum,  credere  Deo,  cognoscere  Deum, 
etc.  On  Luther’s  poetic  and  fanciful  descriptions  of  the  paradisiacal  state, 
see  SchenJcel ,  ii.  14,  sq.  (Man  is  made  for  heaven  ;  that  distinguishes  him 
from  “  cows  and  swine.”  The  eye  of  the  first  man  surpassed  the  lynx  and 
eagle  in  sharpness ;  his  arm  was  stronger  than  the  lion  and  the  bear ;  he 
went  among  the  strongest  animals  as  if  they  were  hounds.) — Zwingle  is  far 
more  sober,  averse  from  all  that  is  fantastic,  perhaps  even  too  spiritualizing 
in  his  views  of  the  primeval  state;  as  in  his  work,  Yon  der  Klarheit  des 
Wortes  Gottes  (German  Works,  i.  56)  :  “  Were  we  made  in  the  likeness  of 
God  in  our  bodies,  God  must  also  have  a  body  made  up  of  members,  after 
which  ours  were  fashioned ;  whence  it  would  follow  that  God  is  a 
compound,  and  that  the  parts  might  be  separated — all  of  which  is  opposed 
to  the  immutability  of  the  divine  nature.  Hence  it  follows,  that  we  are 
fashioned  in  the  image  of  God  in  our  minds  or  souls.  But  what  this  image 
is  we  know  not,  excepting  that  the  soul  is  the  substance,  upon  which  the 
the  image  of  God  is  specially  impressed.  And  as  we  have  never  seen  God 
in  himself,  in  his  own  form,  we  cannot  know  how  our  souls  are  like  him  in 
substance  and  nature  ;  for  the  soul  does  not  even  know  its  own  substance 
and  nature.  And  it  all  at  last  comes  to  this,  that  the  workings  or  powers 
of  the  soul,  viz.,  will,  understanding,  and  memory,  are  nothing  but  signs  of 
the  essential  image,  which' we  shall  really  see,  when  we  see  God  as  he  is  in 
himself,  and  ourselves  in  him  (1  Cor.  xiii.  12) . Now  we  find  in  our¬ 

selves,  that  the  image  of  God  is  much  more  cognate  with  some  things,  than 

with  the  three  powers,  will,  understanding,  and  memory.f . I  mean,  that 

there  are  other  parts  of  us  in  which  we  may  discern  the  image  of  God _ 

such  as  the  vision  of  Him  and  his  Word;  these  are  things  which  show  that 

*  «  * 

*  Other  comparisons,  e.  g.  that  with  the  wreath  of  a  virgin,  a  golden  bridle,  etc.,  are 
quoted  by  Marheineke ,  Symbolik,  iii.  p.  12. 

t  Referring  to  Augustine,  who  finds  in  these  an  image  of  the  Trinity. 


§  245.  Man  Prior  to  the  Fall. 


253 


friendship,  likeness,  and  conformity  to  God  maybe  in  us....  For  the  fact 
that  man  can  look  up  to  God  and  his  Word  shows  clearly,  that  in  his  nature 
he  is  born  somewhat  akin  to  God,  that  he  can  follow  after  him,  that  he  can  be 
drawn  unto  him,  from  all  of  which  it  follows  without  any  doubt,  that  he  is 
created  in  the  image  of  God. —  Calvin  tries  to  harmonize  the  bodily  and  the 
spiritual,  by  representing  the  former  as  the  foil  of  the  latter  :  Institutes, 
I.  15,  §  3  :  Quamvis  imago  Dei  in  homine  externo  refulgeat,  proprium  tamen 
imaginis  semen  in  anima  esse,  dubium  non  est  (this  is  against  Osiander,  who 
sought  for  the  image  of  God  in  the  body).  §  4.  He  speaks  of  the  image  of 
God,  as — integra  humanae  naturae  praestantia,  quae  refulsit  in  Adam  ante 
defectionem. . .  .nunc  aliqua  ex  parte  conspicitur  in  electis,  quatenus  spiritu 
regeniti  sunt ;  plenum  vero  fulgorem  obtinebit  in  coelo.  (He  agrees  with 
Zwingle  in  opposing  Augustine’s  view  of  the  image  of  the  Trinity).  §  8:. . . . 
His  praeclaris  dotibus  excelluit  prima  hominis  conditio,  ut  ratio,  intelligentia, 
prudentia,  judicium  non  modo  ad  terrenae  vitae  gubernationem  suppeterent, 
sed  quibus  transcenderent  usque  ad  Deum  et  aeternam  felicitatem. . .  .In  hac 
integritate  libero  arbitrio  pollebat  homo,  quo,  si  vellet,  adipisci  posset  aeter¬ 
nam  vitam.  Comp.  SchenJcel ,  ii.  p.  11,  sq. — Among  the  Lutheran  symbols, 
the  Augsburg  Confession  passes  by  the  primitive  state  of  man  ;  but  the 
doctrine  is  contained  in  the  Apol.  Conf.  Aug.  p.  53,  ss.  :  Justitia  originalis 
habitura  erat  non  solum  aequale  temperamentum  qualitatum  corporis,  sed  etiam 
haec  dona,  notitiam  Dei  certiorem,  timorem  Dei,  fiduciam  Dei  aut  certe  rectitu- 
dinem  et  vim  ista  efficiendi.  Idque  testatur  Scriptura,  cum  inquit,  hominem 
ad  imaginem  et  similitudinem  Dei  conditum  esse  (Genes,  i.  27).  Quod  quid 
est  aliud,  nisi  in  homine  hanc  sapientiam  et  justitiam  effigiatam  esse,  quae 
Deum  apprehenderet  et  in  qua  reluceret  Deus,  h.  e.  homini  dona  esse  data 
notitiam  Dei,  timorem  Dei,  fiduciam  erga  Deum  et  similia  ?  Comp.  p.  52  : 
Propriis  viribus  posse  diligere  Deum  super  omnia,  facere  prsecepta  Dei,  quid 
aliud  est  quern  habere  justitiam  originis  ?  Comp.  Form.  Concord,  p.  640. — 
Confess.  Basil.  I.  Art.  2 :  “  Concerning  man,  we  confess  that  he  was  at  first 
created  by  God  after  the  image  of  God’s  holiness  and  justice.”  (Gen.  i. 
Eph.  iv.  24.  Gen.  iii.)  Conf.  Helv.  II.  8  :  Fuit  homo  ab  initio  a  Deo  con- 
ditus  ad  imaginem  Dei,  in  justitia  et  sanctitate  veritatis,  bonus  et  rectus. 
Comp.  Conf.  Belg.  Art.  14.  Scotica  2.  Gallic.  9.  Cat.  Heidelb.  6.  Canon 
Dordrac.  3,  1  (where  perhaps  the  strongest  statements  are  made),  and  Form. 
Concord.  7. — Compare  the  definitions  of  the  later  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
theologians  quoted  by  He  Wette ,  Dogmatik,  p.  91  ;  e.  g.  Calov ,  iv.  392. .. . 
Eminebat  cognitio  primseva  prse  moderna  quorumvis,  sive  Theologorum'  sive 
Philosophorum  aliorumve  sapientum,  peritia  et  sapientia.  Polanus ,  p.  2122: 
Homo  integer  recte  cognoscebat  Deum  et  opera  Dei  atque  se  ipsum,  et 
sapienter  intelligebat  omnia  simplicia,  singularia  et  universalia  eaquerecte 
componebat  aut  dividebat  et  ex  compositis  absque  errore  ratiocinabatur. — 
Those  theologians  who  adopted  the  theory  of  the  covenants,  supposed  the 
status  operum  to  have  had  place  in  this  original  state  of  man.  Comp.  De 
Wette ,  Dogmatik,  p.  91. — Zwingle  also  included  the  possibility  of  sinning 
among  the  endowments  of  man’s  moral  nature  in  his  primitive  estate.  De 
Provid.  Dei  (Opera,  iv.  p.  139)  :  Quanto  magis  omnium  operum  rarissimum 
homo  non  est  miser,  quantum  ad  genus  attinet:  hie  enim  quum  intellectu 


254 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


prseditus  sit,  supra  omnia  sensibilia  dignitate  evehitur.  Ea  enim,  przeter 
hominem,  universa  intellectu  carent,  qui  ex  primis  dotibus  numinis  praecipuus 
est.  Ipsum  igitur  dum  cum  numine  communem,  quantumvis  mutuo,  habet; 
jam  tantum  est  nobilior  bomo  reliquis  sensibilibus,  quanto  lux  tenebris,  volu- 
cres  reptilibus,  et  anima  corpore.  Non  est  ergo  vel  imprudentise  vel  indigna- 
tionis  Dei  opus  bomo  sic  factus,  ut  labi  possit,  quemadmodum  et  de  angelo 
sentiendum  est :  quum  enim  soli  cum  numine  intellectum  babent,  dotem 
divinissimam,  et  nibil  tarn  infirmum  ac  bumile  est,  quod  non  sit  in  suo  genere 
et  optimum  et  utilissimum :  jam  et  homo  erit  in  sua  classe  absolutissime 
divina  providentia  factus.  Quae  ergo  imprudentes  miserim  damus,  felicitatis 
sunt.  Labi  potuisse  a  numine  est  inditum  ;  fuit  ergo  insignis  alicujus  boni 
causa.  So,  too,  Calvin ,  ubi  supra,  j Bucanus,  iii.  (in  Schweizer ,  i.  188)  : 
Adamum  flexibilem  fecit,  non  talem,  qui  non  posset  nec  vellet  unquam  pec- 
care.  Immutabilem  esse  solius  Dei  est.  Keckermann,  141,  and  others, 
cited  by  Schweizer ,  ubi  supra.  Comp.  Heppe ,  384,  sq .,  354,  sq. 

4  The  Arminian  symbols  (Confess.  Remonstrant.  5.  5.  and  Apol.  Confess, 
p.  60,  quoted  b}T  Winer ,  p.  52),  agree  with  Calvin  in  insisting  on  the  origi¬ 
nal  freedom  of  the  will,  but  reject  on  this  very  account  the  notion  of  a  prim¬ 
itive  state  of  perfect  holiness,  because  if  there  bad  been  such,  man  could  not 
have  sinned.  Thus  Limborch ,  Theolog.  Christ,  ii.  24,  5,  shows  that  that  state 
of  innocence  of  our  first  parents  to  which  so  much  importance  is  attached, 
must  have  been  united  with  ignorance  (nesciebant  nuditatem  esse  indecoram); 
otherwise  they  would  have  known  that  serpents  cannot  speak,  and  would 
have  been  led  to  suspect  something  wrong !  Limborch  admitted  that  man 
would  not  have  died,  if  he  had  not  sinned,  but  he  objected  to  the  infer¬ 
ence  which  orthodox  theologians  drew  from  it — viz.,  that  immortality  origi¬ 
nally  belonged  to  the  nature  of  man  ;*  he  thought  that  God  would  have 
protected  him  against  death. 

6  Cat.  Racov.  p.  18  (quoted  by  Winer,  p.  52).  Socinus,  Prsel.  c.  3  :  Si 
justitiae  originalis  nomine  earn  conditionem  intelligunt,  ut  non  posset  peccare, 
earn  certe  non  habuit  Adamus,  cum  eum  peccasse  constet ;  neque  enim 

peccasset,  nisi  prius  peccare  potuisset . Concludamus  igitur,  Adamum 

etiam  antequam  mandatum  illud  Dei  transgrederetur,  revera  justum  non 
fuisse ,  cum  nec  impeccabilis  esset  nec  ullam  peccandi  occasionem  habuisset, 
vel  certe  justum  eum  fuisse  affirmari  non  posse,  cum  nullo  modp  constet,  eum 
ulla  ratione  a  peccatis  abstinuisse.  Compare  also  Cat.  Racov.  Qu.  22  (the 
last  revision,  as  quoted  by  Winer,  1.  c.)  Fock,  Socinianismus,  p.  472,  sq. 

6  Catechismus  Roman.  Qu.  40 . ut  homo  nihil  habet  commune  cum 

immortalitate.  Qu.  41  :  Cur  nihil  habet  commune  homo  cum  immortali- 
tate  ?  Idcirco  quod  ab  initio  de  humo  formatus  proptereaque  mortalis  creatus 
fuerit.  Socinus,  De  Statu  primi  Hominis  ante  Lapsum  (in  opposition  to 
Francis  Pucci  of  Florence),  1578,  in  the  Bibl.  Fratr.  Polon.  ii.  p.  253,  ss.,  p. 
258  :  Nego,  bominem  a  Deo  immortalem  fuisse  creatum. — But  he  did  not 
mean  to  say,  eum  ab  ipso  creationis  initio  morti  penitus  fuisse  obnoxium, 
adeo  ut  omnino  ei  moriendum  esset,  sed  tantummodo  sua  natura  morti  fuisse 

*  On  the  question,  how  far  other  Protestants  taught  that  man,  posse  non  mori ,  see 
Winer ,  p.  62. 


§  246.  The  Fall  and  its  Consequences. 


255 


subjectum,  et  nonnisi  divina  gratia,  qua  in  ipsa  creatione  donatus  non  fuerat, 
a  morte  immunem  perpetuo  esse  potuisse.  In  support  of  his  opinion  he  ap¬ 
pealed  to  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  and  2  Tim.  i.  10.  By  thus  considering  Christ  as 
the  true  author  of  life,  he  advocated  the  principles  of  supernaturalism.  On 
similar  views  entertained  by  earlier  theologians,  see  Yol.  i.  §  58,  pp.  158-9, 
and  FocJc,  Socinianismus,  p.  483,  sq.  The  latter  says  (p.  490)  :  “  The  idea 
that  man  became  mortal  at  some  definite  point  of  time,  being  at  first  im¬ 
mortal,  was  so  much  opposed  to  all  sound  views  of  nature,  that  a  system 
which  declared  that  reason  was  its  guide,  could  not  be  satisfied  with  it.  On 
the  other  side,  however,  we  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  the  orthodox 
doctrine  of  man’s  immortality  in  his  primeval  estate  has  an  essential  specu¬ 
lative  kernel,  viz.,  that  immortality  belongs  to  the  very  idea  of  human  na¬ 
ture.” 

Concerning  the  opinions  of  the  Mennonites,  the  Quakers,  and  the  theologians  of  the 
Greek  Church,  which  are  of  less  importance,  see  Winer ,  1.  c. 

How  far  Calixtus  recognized  the  justitia  originalis  as  a  donum  supernaturale,  and  on 
this  account  was  accused  of  papistry  by  his  opponents,  see  in  the  Consensus  Repet.,  Punc¬ 
tual  17  ( Henke's  edition,  p.  14) ;  and  Schmid,  u.  s.,  363. 


§  246. 

THE  FALL  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES.  (ORIGINAL  SIN.) 

( Definitions  of  the  Symbols .) 

In  connection  with  these  opinions  respecting  the  original  state  of 
man,  was  developed  the  Protestant  doctrine  concerning  the  fall,  as 
propounded  in  most  of  the  works  of  the  reformers/  as  well  as  in  the 
symbolical  hooks  of  the  churches.2  This  doctrine  represented  the 
fall  of  man  as  a  fact  by  which  his  inmost  nature  was  corrupted,  his 
original  righteousness  changed  into  absolute  depravity,  and  whose 
consequences  have  so  affected  his  descendants,  as  to  expose  them,  in 
their  natural  condition,  to  condemnation,  and  to  make  them  unable 
to  do  anything  that  is  truly  good.  The  views  of  Roman  Catholics 
were  less  rigid  :  in  their  opinion  the  fall  of  man  caused  only  the  loss 
of  the  gifts  of  divine  grace,  the  natural  consequences  of  which  are 
his  imperfections  and  infirmity.3  The  Arminians  entertained  still 
milder  views/  while  the  Socinians  bordered  more  than  any  other 
sect  upon  Pelagianism.6  In  accordance  with  some  earlier  theolo¬ 
gians,  they  declared  corporeal  death  to  he  the  chief  consequence  of  the 
first  sin,  and  derived  the  existence  of  moral  infirmity  merely  from 
the  habit  of  sinning,  hut  not  from  the  sin  of  Adam. 

1  The  strictly  Augustiniau  view  of  Luther  stood  in  intimate  connection 
with  his  whole  tone  of  mind,  as  well  as  with  the  experience  of  his  life.  It 


256 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


was  confirmed  by  the  contests  which  he  maintained  against  the  superficial 
Pelagian  doctrine  of  his  opponents,  concerning  the  meritoriousness  of  works. 
He  developed  his  principles  especially  in  his  controversy  with  Erasmus, 
whose  views  laid  down  in  his  treatise,  De  Hbero  Arbitrio,  1524,  he  com¬ 
bated  in  his  work,  De  servo  Arbitrio,  1525,  in  opposition  to  which  Eras¬ 
mus  composed  the  Hyperaspistes,  1526.  In  other  passages  Luther  also 
uses  very  strong  language  about  original  sin,  which  he  calls,  among  other 
things,  the  leaven  of  the  devil,  with  which  our  nature  is  poisoned;  see  Walch., 
ii.  2146  sq.,  vi.  396,  xi.  2605  ;  and  SchenJcel ,  ii.  16  sq.  Heppe ,  388.  [“  Original 
sin  is  the  real  and  chief  sin  ;  if  that  were  not,  there  were  no  actual  sins.  This 
sin  is  not  committed  like  other  sins  ;  but  it  is,  it  lives,  and  does  all  other  sins, 
and  is  the  essential  sin ;  one  which  does  not  merely  sin  an  hour  or  any 
given  time,  but  wherever  and  as  long  as  the  person  lives,  there  too  is  sin.” 
Werke,  xi.  396.  See  also  Luther’s  Lehre  von  der  Gnade,  in  the  Theologi- 
sche  Zeitschrift,  I860.]  Melancthon ,  in  the  first  edition  of  his  Loci,  adopted 
the  doctrine  of  the  total  corruption  of  mankind,  and  the  lack  of  free  will 
(Edit.  Augusti,  p.  18  as),  p.  19:  Jam  posteaquam  deliquit  Adam,  aversatus 
est  Deus  hominem,  ut  non  adsit  ei  gubernator  Dei  spiritus.  Ita  fit,  ut  anima, 
luce  vitaque  ccelesti  carens,  excoecetur  et  sese  ardentissime  amet,  sua  quserat, 
non  cupiat,  non  velit,  nisi  carnalia,  etc.  Ibid. :  Sicut  in  igni  est  genuina  vis, 
qua  sursum  fertur,  sicut  in  magnete  est  genuina  vis,  qua  ad  se  ferrum  trahit, 
ita  est  in  homine  nativa  vis  ad  peccandum. — In  his  opinion  as  in  that  of 
Luther,*  the  virtues  of  the  Gentiles  are  only — virtutum  umbrae.  Thus 
Socrates,  Cato,  and  others,  were  only  virtuous  from  ambition.  . .  .Pag.  23  : 
Ut  rem  ornnern  velut  in  compendium  cogam,  omnes  homines  per  vires  na¬ 
turae  vere  semperque  peccatores  sunt  et  peccant.  Comp.  Guile’s  Melancthon, 
p.  237,  ss.  [Melancthon  on  the  Nature  of  Sin,  in  Theological  Essays  from 
the  Princeton  Review,  New  York,  1846,  pp.  218-228.]  Respecting  the 
modifications  which  occur  in  later  editions  of  his  work,  see  Galley p.  266,  ss., 
and  Heppe ,  386. — Zwingle’s  views  were  more  mild  than  those  of  any  of  the 
other  reformers  upon  the  subject  of  original  sin  ;  he  considered  it  to  be 
actual  sin  only  in  a  certain  sense.  Thus  in  his  Fidei  Ratio,  addressed  to 
Charles  Y.  (Opera,  iv.  p.  6)  :  De  originali  peccato  sic  sentio :  Peccatum 
vere  dicitur,  cum  contra  legem  itum  est ;  ubi  enim  non  lex  est,  ibi  non  est* 
praevaricatio,  et  ubi  non  est  praevaricatio,  ibi  non  est  peccatum  proprie  cap¬ 
ture,  quatenus  scilicet  peccatum,  scelus,  crimen,  facinus  aut  reatus  est. 
Patrem  igitur  nostrum  peccavisse  fateor  peccatum,  quod  vere  peccatum  est, 
scelus  scilicet,  crimen  ac  nefas.  At  qui  ex  isto  prognati  sunt,  non  hoc  modo 
peccarunt ;  quis  enim  nostrum  in  paradiso  pomum  vetitum  depopulatus  est 
dentibus?  Velimus  igitur  nolimus,  admittere  cogimur,  peccatum  originale, 
ut  est  in  filiis  Adae,  non  proprium  peccatum  esse,  quomoao  jam  expositum 
est ;  non  enim  est  facinus  contra  legem.  Morbus  igitur  est  proprie  et  con¬ 
ditio  :  morbus,  quia,  sicut  ille  ex  amore  sui  lapsus  est,  ita  et  nos  labimur  ;  con¬ 
ditio,  quia,  sicut  ille  servus  est  factus  et  morti  obnoxius,  sic  et  nos  servi  et 
filii  irae  nascimur  et  morti  obnoxii.  (An  illustration  of  a  servant,  who  is 
made  a  prisoner  of  war  with  his  master,  but  without  guilt  of  his  own.) 


*  In  this  view  Luther  goes  even  beyond  Augustine;  see  SchenJcel t  ii.  p.  17. 


§  246.  The  Fall  and  its  Consequences. 


257 


Comp.  Zwingle ,  De  Peccato  original],  ad  Urbanum  Rhegium,  Opera,  iii.  p. 
627,  sq.  Pag.  628  :  Quid  enim  brevius  aut  clarius  dici  potuit  quam  origi- 
nale  peccatum  non  esse  peccatum,  sed  morbum,  et  Cbristianorum  liberos 
propter  morbum  istum  non  addicti  seterno  supplicio  ?  Contra  vero,  quid 
imbecillius  dici  potuit  et  a  canonica  scriptura  alienius,  quam. . .  .non  tantum 
esse  morbum,  sed  etiam  reatum  ?  Pag.  629  :  Morti  autem  vocabulo  liic. . 
utimur . .  quatenus  cum  vitio  conjunctus  est,  eoque  perpetuo,  ut  genti  alicui 
translatitium  est  balbutire,  coecutire,  podagra  laborare.  Quod  malum  na- 
turale  defectum  solemus  germanice  ein  naturlichen  Bresten  appellare,  quo 
nemo  vel  pejor  vel  sceleratior  existimatur :  non  enim  possunt  in  crimen  aut 
culpam  rapi,  quae  natura  adsunt.  Si  ergo  diximus  originalem  contagionem 
morbum  esse,  non  peccatum,  quod  peccatum  cum  culpa  conjunctum  est; 
culpa  verb  ex  commisso  vel  admisso  ejus  nascitur,  qui  facinus  designavit. 
(Example  of  one  born  in  slavery.)  Compare  his  work,  Yom  Kindertouf 
(Paedobaptism),  Werke,  ii.  1,  p.  287,  sq. :  “Original  sin  is  nothing  but  a 
natural  defect  derived  from  Adam. . .  .such  a  defect  {Bresteii)  as  one  has  by 
birth,  or  acquires  from  any  accident.”  “  The  difference,”  says  Schweizer ,  i. 
46,  “  of  Zwingle’s  view  from  the  common  one  is  a  fact  of  no  great  moment”  (?). 
One  of  the  chief  differences  is  this,  that  Zwingle  does  not  view  original  sin 
as  imputed  to  man  ;  that  original  sin,  as  such,  is  not  under  condemnation. 
Compare  the  flirther  passages,  and  the  defence  of  Zwingle  by  the  Reformed 
theologians  ( e .  g.  Pictet ),  in  Schweizer ,  ubi  supra,  and  in  SchenJcel,  ii.  29,  sq. 
As  to  the  extent  to  which  Zwingle  put  the  essence  of  sin  in  the  bodily  con¬ 
stitution  (the  flesh),  see  ibid.  34.  At  any  rate,  with  all  the  reformers,  he 
held  to  the  absolute  sinfulness  and  condemnation  of  man  in  the  sight  of  God  ; 
see  his  treatise  on  Divine  and  Human  Justice  (Werke,  i.  435)  :  “  We  are  all 
criminal  before  God. .  .  .and  as  our  crimes  are  known  to  God  alone,  so  He 
alone  judges  them ....  I  call  human  righteousness,  a  poor  defective  right¬ 
eousness,  because  a  man  may  well  be  just  and  esteemed  before  men,  who  is 
not  just  in  the  sight  of  God  :  for  no  man  is  just  before  God. . .  .it  is  not 
possible  for  a  man  to  be  inwardly  pious,  pure  and  clean,  according  to  divine 
righteousness.”  Hence,  he  is  no  Pelagian  !  Calvin  is  here  intermediate 
between  Luther  and  Zwingle.  Inst.  II.  1,  §  6  (ed.  Gen.  1550,  f.)  :  Non 
aliter  interpretari  licet  quod  dicitur,  nos  in  Adam  mortuos  esse,  quam  quod 
ipse  peccando  non  sibi  tantum  cladem  ac  ruinam  ascivit,  sed  naturam  quoque 
nostram  in  simile  prsecipitavit  exitium.  Neque  id  suo  unius  vitio,  quod 
nihil  ad  nos  pertineat,  sed  quoniam  universum  suum  semen  ea,  in  quam 
lapsus  erat  vitiositate,  infecit. . .  .Sic  ergo  se  corrupit  Adam,  ut  ab  eo  tran¬ 
sient  in  totam  sobolem  contagio,  etc.  §  8  :  Yidetur  ergo  peccatum  originale 
hereditaria  naturae  nostrae  pravitas  et  corruptio  in  omnes  animae  partes  dif¬ 
fusa. ...  Quare  qui  peccatum  originale  definierunt  carentiam  justitiae  origi- 
nalis,  quam  inesse  nobis  oportebat,  quamquam  id  totum  complectuntur,  quod 
in  re  est,  non  tamen  satis  significanter  vim  atque  energiam  ipsius  expresse- 
runt.  Non  enim  natura  nostra  boni  tantum  inops  et  vacua  est,  sed  malorum 
omnium  adeo  fertilis  et  ferax,  ut  otiosa  esse  non  possit.  Qui  dixerunt,,  esse 
concupiscentiam,  non  nimis  alieno  verbo  usi  sunt,  si  modo  adderetur  (quod 
minime  conceditur  a  plerisaue),  quidquid  in  homine  est,  ab  intellectu  ad 
voluntatem,  ab  anima  ad  carnem  usque,  hac  concupiscentia  inquinatum 


258 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


refertumque  esse,  aut,  ut  brevius  absolvatur,  totum  hominem  non  aliud  ex  se 
ipso  esse  quam  concupiscentiam.  That  sounds  like  Flacianism  ;  but  see  also 
§  11  :  A  natura  fluxisse  (peccatum)  negamus,  ut  significemus  adventitiam 
magis  esse  qualitatem,  quae  homini  acciderit ,  quam  substantialem  proprietatem , 
quam  ab  initio  induerit.  Yocamus  tamen  naturalem,  ne  quis  ab  unoquoque 
prava  consuetudine  comparari  putet,  quam  haereditario  jure  universos  com- 
prebensos  teneat.  §9 :  Neque  enim  appetitus  tantum  eum  (Adamum)  illexit,  sed 
arcem  ipsam  mentis  occupavit  nefanda  impietas  et  ad  cor  intimum  penetravit 
superbia,  ut  frigidum  sit  ac  stultum,  corruptelam,  quae  inde  manavit,  ad  sen- 
suales  tantum,  ut  vocant,  motus  restringere.  Comp.  SchenJcel ,  ii.  37,  sq. 

2  As  regards  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Lutheran  Church ,  see  Confessio 
August.  Art.  2  :  Docent,  quod  post  lapsum  Adae  omnes  homines,  secundum 
naturam  propagati,  nascantur  cum  peccato,  h.  e.  sine  metu  Dei,  sine  fiducia 
erga  Deum  et  cum  concupiscentia,  quodque  bic  morbus  seu  vitium  originis 
vere  sit  peccatum,  damnans  et  afferens  nunc  quoque  aeternam  mortem  bis, 
qui  non  renascuntur  per  baptismum  et  Spir.  S.  Damnant  Pelagianos  et 
alios,  qui  vitium  originis  negant  esse  peccatum,  et,  ut  extenuent  gloriam 
meriti  et  beneficiorum  Christi,  disputant  bominem  propriis  viribus  rationis 
coram  Deo  justificari  posse.  Comp.  Apol.  Art.  1,  5,  Art.  Smalcald.  p.  317  : 
Peccatum  baereditarium  tarn  profunda  ettetraest  corruptio  naturae,  ut  nullius 
bominis  ratione  intelligi  possit,  sed  ex  Scripturae  patefactione  agnoscenda  et 
credenda  sit.  Formula  Cone.  p.  574  :  Credimus  peccatum  originis  non  esse 
levem,  sed  tam  profundam  bumanae  naturae  corruptionem,  quae  nibil  sanum, 
nibil  incorruptum  in  corpore  et  anima  bominis,  atque  adeo  in  interioribus  et 
exterioribus  viribus  ejus,  reliquit. — According  to  p.  640,  nothing  is  left  to 
man  but  impotentia  et  ineptitude,  advvayla  et  stupidites,  qua  homo  ad 
omnia  divina  seu  spiritualia  sit  prorsus  ineptus. . . . In  aliis  enim  externis 
hujus  mundi  rebus,  quae  rationi  subjectae  sunt,  relictum  est  bomini  adbuc 
aliquid  intellectus,  virium  et  facultatum,  etsi  bae  etiam  miserae  reliquiae  valde 
sunt  debiles,  et  quidem  baec  ipsa  quantulacunque  per  morbum  ilium  baeredi¬ 
tarium  veneno  infecta  sunt  atque  contaminata,  ut  coram  Deo  nullius  momenti 
sint.  Respecting  the  Symbolical  iBooks  of  the  Reformed  Church ,  comp. 
Confess.  Basil.  I.  Art.  2  :  Man  has  wilfully  committed  sin,  and  by  bis  fall 
brought  corruption  upon  the  whole  human  race,  exposed  it  to  condemna¬ 
tion,  weakened  our  nature,  and  introduced  such  a  tendency  to  sin,  that' if 
the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  restore  it,  man  by  himself  neither  will  nor  can  do  good. 
Conf.  Helv.  II.  8  :  Peccatum  autem  intelligimus  esse  nativam  illam  bominis 
corruptionem  ex  primis  nostris  parentibus  in  nos  omnes  derivatam  vel  propa- 
gatam,  qua  concupiscentiis  pravis  immersi  et  a  bono  aversi,  ad  omne  vero 
malum  propensi,  pleni  omni  nequitia,  diffidentia,  contemtu  et  odio  Dei,  nibil 
boni  ex  nobis  ipsis  facere,  imo  ne  cogitare  quidem  possutaus.  Cap.  9:. . . . 
Non  sublatus  est  quidem  bomini  intellectus,  non  erepta  ei  voluntas  et  prorsus 
in  lapidem  vel  truncum  est  commutatus.  Ceterum  ilia  ita  sunt  immutata  et 
imminuta  in  bomine,  ut  non  possint  amplius,  quod  potuerunt  ante  lapsum. 
Intellectus  enim  obscuratus  est,  voluntas  vero  ex  libera  facta  est  voluntas 
serva.  Nam  servit  peccato,  non  nolens  sed  volens.  Etenim  voluntas,  non 
noluntas  dicitur.  Ergo  quoad  malum  sive  peccatam  homo  non  coactus  vel  a 
Deo,  vel  a  Diabolo,  sed  sua  sponte  malum  facit  et  hac  parte  liberrimi  est 


§  245.  The  Fall  and  its  Consequences. 


259 


j irbitrii.  .  .  .Quantum  vero  ad  bonum  et  ad  virtutes,  intellectus  bominis  non 
recte  judicat  de  divinis  ex  semet  ipso.  Heidelberg  Catechism,  Qu.  7  :  By 
the  fall  and  disobedience  of  our  first  parents  our  nature  has  been  so  cor¬ 
rupted  that  we  are  all  conceived  and  born  in  sins.  Quest.  8.  But  are  we  so 
corrupt  that  we  are  wholly  unable  to  do  anything  that  is  good,  and  inclined 
to  do  all  that  is  evil  ?  Ans.  Yes,  unless  we  be  regenerated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.*  Comp.  Conf.  Gall.  c.  9,  Belg.  15  :  (Peccatum  orig.)  est  totius  na¬ 
turae  corruptio  et  vitium  haereditarium,  quo  et  ipsi  infantes  in  matris  suae 
utero  polluti  sunt,  quodque  veluti  radix  omne  peccatorum  genus  in  homine 
producit  ideoque  ita  foedum  et  exsecrabile  est  coram  Deo,  ut  ad  gene¬ 
ris  humani  condemnationem  sufficiat.  Canon.  Dord.  c.  8,  Art.  1,  Form. 
Cons.  10  :  Censemus  igitur,  peccatum  Adami  omnibus  ejus  posteris,  judicio 
Dei  arcano  et  justo,  imputari.  11  :  Duplici  igitur  nomine  post  peccatum 
homo  natura,  indeque  ab  ortu  suo,  antequam  ullum  actuale  peccatum  in  se 
admittat,  irae  ac  maledictioni  divinse  obnoxius  est :  primum  quidem  ob  napd- 
Trrojpa  et  inobedientiam,  quam  in  Adami  lumbis  commisit ;  deinde  ob  con- 
sequentem  in  ipso  conceptu  hsereditariam  corruptionem  insitam,  qua  tota  ejus 
natura  depravata  et  spiritualiter  mortua  est,  adeo  quidem,  ut  recte  peccatum 
original e  statuatur  duplex,  imputatum  videlicet  et  haereditarium  inhaerens. 
[The  XXXIX.  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  Art.  9  :  Of  Original  or 
Birth-sin  :  Original  sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  of  Adam  (as  the  Pela¬ 
gians  do  vainly  talk) ;  but  in  the  fault  and  corruption  of  the  nature  of  eveiy 
man,  that  naturally  is  engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam  ;  whereby  man 
is  very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  is  of  his  own  nature  inclined 
to  evil,  so  that  the  flesh  lusteth  always  contrary  to  the  spirit ;  and  therefore 
in  every  person  born  into  this  world,  it  deserveth  God’s  wrath  and  damna¬ 
tion.  And  this  infection  of  nature  doth  remain,  yea,  in  them  that  are  re¬ 
generate  ;  whereby  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  called  in  the  Greek,  phronema 
sarlcos ,  which  some  do  expound  the  wisdom,  some  sensuality,  some  the  affec¬ 
tion,  some  the  desire  of  the  flesh,  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God.  And 
although  there  is  no  condemnation  for  them  that  believe  aud  are  baptized, 
yet  the  Apostle  doth  confess,  that  concupiscence  and  lust  hath  of  itself  the 
nature  of  sin. — The  Westminster  Confession,  chapter  vi.  3  :  They  [our  first 
parents]  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  [their  first]  sin  was 
imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all 
their  posterity,  descending  from  them  by  ordinary  generation.  Larger 
Catechism,  Qu.  22  :  The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam ,  not  for  himself 
only,  but  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind  descending  from  him  by  ordinary 
generation  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression.  Qu.  25. 
The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell,  consisteth  in  the  guilt  of 
Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  that  rightousness  wherein  he  was  created,  and 
the  corruption  of  his  nature,  whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and 
made  opposite  unto  all  that  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all 
evil,  and  that  continually ;  which  is  commonly  called  original  sin ,  and  from 
which  do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions.] 

*  The  Roman  Catholics  also  rejected  pure  Pelagianism,  Cone.  Trid.  sess.  v. 

*  Concerning  the  controversies  to  which  this  proposition  afterwards  gave  rise,  see  Beck 
haus,  L  c.  p.  57,  (a.  d.  1583,  it  was  opposed  by  the  Dutch  theologian,  Coornhert) 


260 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


1,  2. . .  .Si  quis  Adse  praevaricationem  sibi  soli  et  non  ejus  propagini  assent 
nocuisse,  et  acceptam  a  Deo  sanctitatem  et  justitiam,  quam  perdidit,  sibi  soli 
et  non  nobis  etiam  enm  perdidisse,  ant  inquinatum  ilium  per  inobedientiae 
peccatum  mortem  et  poenas  corporis  tantum  in  omne  genus  bumanum  trans- 
fudisse,  non  autem  et  peccatum,  quod  mors  est  animae  :  anathema  sit.  Sess. 
vi.  c.  1,  it  is  asserted  that  the  free  will  of  man  is,  by  the  fall,  weakened  and 
turned  aside  (attenuatum  et  inclinatum)  ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  main¬ 
tained,  in  terms  quite  as  decided,  Can.  5  :  fei  quis  liberum  hominis  arbitrium 
post  Adse  peccatum  amissum  et  extinctum  esse  dixerit. ...  anathema  sit. 
Comp.  Cat.  Rom.  3,  10,  6,  and  especially  Bellarmine ,  De  Amiss.  Gratise. 

4  Apol.  Conf.  Remonstr.,  p.  84,  b.  (quoted  by  Winer,  p.  59) :  Peccatum 
originale  nec  habent  (Remonstrantes)  pro  peccato  proprie  dicto,  quod  poste- 
ros  Adami  odio  Dei  dignos  faciat,  nec  pro  malo,  quod  per  modum  proprie 
dictae  poense  ab  Adamo  in  posteros  dimanet,  sed  pro  malo,  infirmitate,  vitio 
ant  quocunque  tandem  alio  nomine  vocetur,  quod  ab  Adamo  justitia  origin- 
ali  privato  in  posteros  ejus  propagatur :  unde  fit,  ut  posteri  omnes  Adami 
eadem  justitia  destituti,  prorsus  inepti  et  inidonei  sint  ad  vitam  seternam  con- 
sequendum,  aut  in  gratiam  cum  Deo  redeant,  nisi  Deus  nova  gratia  sua  eos 
prseveniat,  et  vires  novas  iis  restituat  ac  sufficiat,  quibus  ad  earn  possint  per- 
venire. .  .  .Peccatum  autem  originis  non  esse  malum  culpse  proprie  dictse, 
quod  vocant,  ratio  manifesta  arguit :  malum  culpse  non  est,  quia  nasci  plane 
involuntarium  est,  ergo  et  nasci  cum  hac  aut  ilia  labe,  infirmitate,  vitio  vel 
malo.  Si  malum  culpse  non  est,  non  potest  esse  malum  poense,  quia  culpa 
et  poena  sunt  relata.  Comp.  Limborch,  Tbeol.  Christ.,  3.  4.  4,  and  other 
passages  quoted  by  Winer ,  pp.  60,  61. 

5  Cat.  Racov.  [Winer,  p.  57),  p.  21:  Homo  morti  est  obnoxius,  quod 
primus  homo  apertum  Dei  mandatum,  cui  adjuncta  fuit  mortis  comminatio, 
trangressus  fuit.  Unde  porro  factum  est,  ut  universam  suam  posteritatem 
secum  in  eadem  mortis  jura  traxerit,  accedente  tamen  cujusvis  in  adultiori- 
bus  proprio  delicto,  cujus  deinde  vis  per  apertam  Dei  legem,  quam  homines 
transgressi  fuerant,  aucta  est. — Cat.  Rac.,  qu.  423  ( Winer,  p.  59) :  Pecca¬ 
tum  originis  nullum  prorsus  est.  Nec  enim  e  Scriptura  id  peccatum 
originis  doceri  potest,  et  lapsus  Adse,  cum  unus  actus  fuerit,  vin  earn, 
quse  depravare  ipsam  naturam  Adami,  multo  minus  vero  posterorum  ejus 
posset,  habere  non  potuit. — Faust .  Socinus,  De  Christo  Serv.,  4,  6.  (Opp.,  ii. 
P*  226)  :  Falluntur  egregie,  qui  peccatum  illud  originis  imputatione  aliqua 
pro  ea  parte,  quse  ad  reatum  spectat,  contineri  autumant,  cum  omnis  reatus 
ex  sola  generis  propagatione  fluat.  Gravius  autem  multo  labuntur,  qui  pro 
ea  parte,  quse  ad  corruptionem  pertinet,  ex  poena  ipsius  delicti  Adami  illud 
fluxisse  affirmant. . .  .Corruptio  nostra  et  ad  peccandum  proclivitas  non  ex 
uno  illo  delicto  in  nos  propagata  est,  sed  continuatis  actibus  habitus  modo 
hujus  modo  illius  vitii  est  comparatus,  quo  naturam  nostram  corrumpente  ea 
corruptio  deinde  per  generis  propagationem  in  nos  est  derivata.  Neque  vero 
si  Adamus  non  deliquisset,  propterea  vel  nos  a  peccatis  immunes  fuissemus 
vel  in  hanc  naturae  corruptionem  incurrere  non  potuissemus,  dummodo,  ut 
ille  habuit,  sic  nos  quoque  voluntatem  ad  malum  liberam  habuissemus. — « 
Praelect.  1  heol.,  c.  4  :  Caeterum  cupiditas  ista  mala,  quae  cum  plerisque  ho- 
minibus  nosci  dici  potest,  non  ex  peccato  illo  primi  parentis  manat,  sed  ex 


§  247.  Antagonisms  within  the  Confessions  Themselves.  263 

eo,  quod  bumanum  genus,  frequentibus  peccatorum  actibus,  habitum  peccandi 
contraxit  et  seipsuru  corrupit:  quae  corruptio  per  propagation em  in  posteros 
transfunditur.  Etenim  unum  illud  peccatum  per  se,  non  modo  universos 
posteros,  sed  ne  ipsum  quidem  Adamum  corrumpendi  vim  babere ,  potuit. 
Dei  vero  consilio,  in  peccati  illius  poenam  id  factum  esse,  nec  usquam  legitur, 
et  plane  incredibile  est,  imo  impium  id  cogitare,  Deum  videlicit  omnis  recti- 
tudinis  auctorem,  ulla  ratione  pravitatis  causam  esse :  quae  tamen  pravitas, 
quatenus,  ut  dictum  est,  per  propagationem  in  bominem  derivatur,  peccatum 
proprie  appellari  nequit. .  .  .Concludimus  igitur,  nullum,  improprie  etiam  lo- 
quendo,  peccatum  originale  esse,  i.  e.,  ex  peccato  illo  primi  parentis  nullam 
labem  aut  pravitatem  universo  bumano  generi  necessario  ingenitam  esse 
sive  inflictam  quodammodo  fuisse,  nec  aliud  malum  ex  primo  illo  delicto  ad 
posteros  omnes  necessario  manasse,  quam  moriendi  omnimodam  necessitatem, 
non  quidem  ex  ipsius  delicti  vi,  sed  quia,  cum  jam  bomo  natura  mortalis  esset, 
ob  delictum  illud  suae  naturali  mortalitati  a  Deo  relictus  est,  quodque  natu- 
rale  erat,  id  in  delinquentis  poenam  prorsus  necessarium  est  factum.  Quare 
qui  ex  ipso  nascuntur,  eadem  conditione  omnes  nasci  oportet :  nibil  enim  illi 
ademtum  fuit,  quod  naturaliter  baberet,  vel  babiturus  esset. — Comp.  Opp. 
i.  p.  334  b :  Vita  aeterna  donum  Dei  est  singulare  et  excellentissimum,  quod 
nibil  cum  natura  bominis  commune  babet  (comp.  §  245,  Note  6),  aut  certe 
ei  nulla  ratione  naturalitur  debetur.  Ipsius  autem  bominis  perpetua  dissolu- 
tio  ei  naturalis  est,  ut  mitissimus  existimandus  sit  Deus,  si  bomini  delinquent 
earn  poenae  loco  constituit.  Nam  quid  illi  vel  boni  aufert,  vel  mali  infert,  si 
eum  naturae  ipsius  propriae  relinquit,  et  a  se  ex  terra  creatum  atque  compac- 
tum,  in  terram  rursus  reverti  ac  dissolvi  sinit.  Hoc  adeo  rationi  per  se  con- 
sentaneum  est,  ut  poena  quodammodo  dici  non  possit.  Comp.  FocJc ,  u.  s., 
498,  654  sq. 

§  247. 

ANTAGONISMS  WITHIN  THE  CONFESSIONS  THEHSELYES. 

But  differences  of  opinion  also  manifested  themselves  among  theo¬ 
logians  belonging  to  the  same  denomination.  In  the  Lutheran 
Church,  Matthias  Flacius  carried  the  Protestant  doctrine  to  an  ex¬ 
treme,  advancing  notions  which  bordered  on  heresy  ;  he  held  that 
original  sin  was  of  the  substance  of  man,  while  Victorin  Strigel  re¬ 
garded  it  only  as  an  accidens.1  Among  the  theologians  of  the  age 
of  the  Deformation  there  were  not  wanting,  on  the  other  hand,  those 
who  held  to  views  that  volatilized  the  essence  of  sin  ;2  and  in  respect  to 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  some  of  the  later  theologians  of  the  Re¬ 
formed  Church,  as  those  of  the  school  of  Saumur ,  especially  Joshua 
de  la  Place ,  manifested  a  disposition  to  adopt  the  milder  views  of 
the  Arminians.3  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
the  Jansenists  returned  to  the  stricter  doctrines  of  Augustine.4 

1  Concerning*  tbe  controversy,  see  Planck,  Gescbichte  des  protestantiscben 
Lehrbegriffs,  v.  1,  p.285  ss. ;  tbe  Dissert,  of  Otto  and  Tcvesten  (above  §  215 


262 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


7,5,);  and  Schmid  in  Illgens  Zeitschrift,  1843,2.  The  views  of  Flacius 
are  principally  brought  out  in  the  work  u  Clavis  Scriptur®,  and  tlie  ap¬ 
pended  treatise,  De  Peccato  Original ;  then  in  the  book,  De  Peccati  Origi¬ 
nal^  Essentia,  Basil,  1568.  See  p.  655  :  Hoc  igitur  modo  sentio  et  assero, 
primarium  peccatum  originate  esse  substantial®,  quia  anima  rationalis  et  pr®- 
sertim  ejus  nobilissim®  substantiates  potenti® — nempe  intellects  et  volun¬ 
tas — quae  ante  erant  ita  praeclare  format®,  ut  essent  vera  imago  Dei  fonsque 
omnis  justiti®,  bonestatis  ac  pietatis,  et  plane  essentialiter  veluti  aureae  et 
gem  me®,  nunc  sunt  fraude  Satan®  adeo  prorsus  invers®,  ut  sint  vera  ac  viva 
imago  Satan®,  et  sint  veluti  stercore®,  aut  potius  ex  gebennali  flamma  con- 
stantes.  See  further  in  Schenkel ,  ii.  44  ;  and  Heppe ,  Gesch.  d.  deutsehen 
Protestantismus,  ii.  395  sq.  On  this  point  the  authors  of  the  Formula  Con- 
cordi®  expressed  themselves  as  follows,  p.  285  :  Etsi  peccatum  originale  to 
tam  hominis  naturam,  ut  spirituale  quoddam  venenum  et  liorribilis  lepra.  . . 
infecit  et  corrupit. .  .  .tamen  non  unum  et  idem  est  corrupta  natura  seu  sub¬ 
stantia  corrupti  hominis,  corpus  et  anima,  aut  homo  ipse  a  Deo  creatus,  in 
quo  originale  peccatum  habitat. ...  et  ipsum  originale  peccatum,  quod  in 
hominis  natura  aut  essentia  habitat  eamque  corrumpit.  In  like  manner  the 
body  of  a  person  infected  with  leprosy,  and  the  disease  itself,  are  two  differ¬ 
ent  things.  The  theologians  of  the  Reformed  Church  also  rejected  the 
views  of  Flacius ;  see  J.  H.  Heidegger ,  Corpus  Theol.  Christ,  x.  40,  (Ed. 
Tig.  1700,  p.  346).  This  opinion  may  in  its  opposition  to  Pelagianism,  be 
termed  Manicheeism ,  inasmuch  as  it  converts  the  moral  element  in  the  idea 
of  sin  into  a  merely  physical  one ;  accordingly,  Heidegger  calls  it  1.  c.  rnani- 
ch®ismus  incrustatus. 

2  Thus  Sebastian  Frank  finds  the  essence  of  sin  in  ignorance  and  folly, 
and  in  general,  views  it  in  a  negative  aspect ;  see  Schenkel ,  ii.  60  sq.  Simi¬ 
lar  views  were  held  by  Ochino ,  Thamer ,  Munzer ,  and  others  ;  ibid.,  p. 
70  sq. 

s  Joshua ;  Placceus ,  Theses  Theologic®  de  Statu  Horn,  lapsi  ante  Gratiara. 
1640,  and  Disput.  de  Imputatione  primi  peccati  Adami,  Salmur,  1655.  He 
only  admitted  a  mediate  imputation  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  but  not  an  immedi¬ 
ate  one ;  the  opposite  view  was  defended  in  the  Formula  Consensus.  [See 
above,  §  225  a,  Note  3.  S.  J.  Baird ,  the  Elohim  Revealed,  Phil.,  I860,  p. 
45.  Theological  Essays  from  Princeton  Review  (New  York,  1846),  pp.  195 
sq.  Schweizer ,  Central  Dogmen,  ii.  234  et  passim.] 

4  See  Reuchlin ,  Port-Royal,  p.  342  ss.  Appendix,  vii.  p.  753  ss. 

In  respect  to  individual  sins,  Protestantism  rejected  their  arbitrary  classification,  after 
the  scholastic  style.  The  real  mortal  sin,  in  the  Protestant  view,  is  unbelief,  which  Luther 
call3  the  “many-headed,  and  many-footed  rat-king  among  the  sins.”  (Walch,  iv.  1075): 
Schenkel,  ii.  73. 

In  connection  with  their  rigid  views  concerning  the  nature  and  origin  of  sin,  the  Pro¬ 
testants  could  not  but  reject  the  notion  of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin ;  that 
they  for  some  time  retained  the  predicates— pura  et  intemerata  virgo  (Conf.  Bas.  I.),  and 
others,  does  not  by  any  means  prove  that  they  admitted  the  doctrine  itself:  comp.  Decla- 
ratio  Thoruniens.  (quoted  by  Augusti ,  pp.  415  and  416) :  Omnes  homines,  solo  Christo  ex- 
cepto,  in  peccato  originali  concepti  et  nati  sunt,  etiam  ipsa  sanctissima  Virgo  Maria. — But 
the  doctrine  in  question  continued  to  meet  with  opposition  on  the  part  of  Roman  Catholio 


§  248.  Anthropology. 


263 


writers  themselves,  and  neither  the  Council  of  Trent,  nor  Bellarmine,  nor  some  of  the  later 
popes  (e.  g.  Gregory  XY.  and  Alexander  VII.)  ventured  to  determine  the  point  at  issue. 
Comp.  Winer ,  p.  57,  note  2.  Augusti ,  Archmologie  III,  p.  100.  See,  however,  the  next 
period. 


§  248. 

FURTHER  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  CONCERNING  MAN,  IN 

THEORY  AS  WELL  AS  IN  PRACTICE. 

The  anthropology  of  the  Protestant  Church  was  more  fully  devel¬ 
oped  both  in  its  practical  workings,  and  by  the  adherents  of  the 
schools.  In  the  spirit  of  the  earlier  scholasticism,  the  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  divines  alike  entered  into  inquiries  respecting  the  creation 
of  man,1  the  propagation  of  the  human  race  (Creationism  and  Tra- 
ducianism),2  the  nature  of  the  fall,3  of  original  sin,4  and  of  actual 
sin.5  The  conscious  sense  of  sin  and  moral  inability,  as  well  as  the 
consciousness  of  freedom,  continued  to  manifest  themselves  in  prac¬ 
tical  life  ;  though,  in  reference  to  the  former,  the  definitions  of  the 
schools,  and  the  bigoted  zeal  which  Calov  displayed  in  his  contro¬ 
versy  with  Calixt  and  his  followers,6  hardened  it  into  a  dead  letter. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Pietists  again  emphasized  the  importance  of 
the  practical  hearing  of  the  doctrine  concerning  the  corruption  of 
mankind,  and  yet  insisted  none  the  less  upon  the  strictest  injunc¬ 
tions  of  morality.1.  This  was  also  the  case  with  the  Jansenists  in 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,8  while  the  Pelagianising  principles  of 
the  Jesuits  were  favorable  to  a  looser  morality.9 

1  The  assertion  that  there  had  been  human  beings  prior  to  the  creation 
of  Adam  ( Preadamites ),  gave  rise  to  a  short  controversy  in  the  Reformed 
Church.  Isaac  Peyrerius  (de  la  Peyrere),  a  Huguenot,  who  had  become 
a  convert  to  Romanism,  and  died  a.  d.  1676,  as  one  of  the  priests  of  the 
Oratory,  published  1655,  a  work  entitled  :  De  Prseadamitis.  Comp.  Dayley 
Dictionaire,  iii.  pp.  637,  638.  His  notion  was  opposed  by  Calov ,  iii.  p. 
1049,  who  called  it  “  monstrosa  opinio;”  Quenstedt ,  i.  p.  733,  ss.,  and 
Hollaz ,  p.  406.  [See,  Isaac  la  Peyrere,  and  his  book,  The  Prseadamites,  in 
the  American  Theological  Review,  Jan.,  1861.]  The  common  definition  of 
man,  given  in  the  works  on  systematic  theology,  was,  that  he  is  an  animal 
rationale.  Most  of  the  writers  adopted  the  dichotomistic  principle,  accord¬ 
ing  to  which  man  consists  of  body  and  soul.  Thus  Hollaz  says,  P.  i.  c.  5, 
Qu.  6  (p.  410)  :  Homo  constat  e  duabus  partibus,  anima  rationali  et  corpore 
organico ;  other  definitions  are  given  by  Hase ,  Hutterus  Redivivus,  p.  192. 
— John  Gerhard  thought  that  man  was  an  image  of  the  Trinity;  see  his 
Loci  Theol.  Tom.  iv.  loc.  ix.  §  6.  Comp.  §  245,  note  3,  on  the  image  of 
God.  On  God’s  breathing  the  breath  of  life  into  man’s  nostrils,  comp. 
Gerhard ,  ibid.  §  12  (quoted  by  De  Wette ,  Dogmatik,  p.  89)  ;  Non  ex  intimo 
ore  suae  essentiae  6pirat  Deus  animam  hominis,  sicut  Spiritura  S.  ab  omni 


264 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


seternitate  intra  divinam  essentiam  Pater  cum  Filio  spirat,  sed  animam  in 
tempore  extra  suam  essentiam  creatam  homini  inspiravit. 

2  Luther  taught  traducianism,  followed  by  most  of  the  Lutheran  divines, 
with  the  exception  of  Calixt,  De  Animse  Creatione.  Gerhard  very  properly 
left  it  to  philosophers  (ix.  8,  §  118,)  to  define  the  modus  propagations ;  but 
he  himself  taught  §  116.  . .  .Animas  eorura,  qui  ex  Adamo  et  Eva  progeniti 
fuissent,  non  creatas,  neque  etiara  generatas,  sed  propagatas  fuisse.  Similar 
views  were  expressed  by  Calov ,  i?i.  1081,  and  Hollaz ,  i.  5,  qu.  9  (pp.  414, 
415)  ;  Anima  humana  hodie  non  immediate  creatur,  sed  mediante  semine 
foecundo  a  parentibus  generatur  et  in  liberos  traducitur.  .  .  .Non  generatur 
anima  ex  traduce,  sine  semine  foecundo,  tamquam  principio  materiali,  sed  per 
traducem,  seu  mediante  semine prolifico  tamquam  vehiculo,  propagatur. — Comp, 
the  Consensus  Repetitus  Fidei  verse  Luth.,  Punct.  22  (in  Henke,  p.  18)  :  Profi- 
temur  et  docemus,  hominem  generare  hominem,  idque  non  tantum  quoad  cor¬ 
pus,  sed  etiam  animam.  Rejicimuseos,  qui  docent,  in  hominibus  singulis  animas 
singulasnon  ex  propagine  oriri,  sed  ex  nihilo  tunc  primum  creari  atque  infundi, 
cum  in  uteris  matrum  foetus  concepti  atque  ad  animationem  prseparati  sunt. — 
On  the  contrary,  Bellarmine,  Calvin ,  and  the  theologians  of  the  Reformed 
Church  in  general,  advocated  the  theory  of  Creationism,  retaining  at  the 
same  time  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Calvin,  indeed,  did  not  attach  so 
much  importance  to  such  statements  as  the  earlier  scholastics  (Instit.  II.  1, 
7) :  Neque  ad  ejus  rei  intelligentiam  necessaria  est  anxia  disputatio,  quse 
veteres  non  parum  torsit  j  but  he  continued  as  follows  :  Neque  in  substantia 
carnis  aut  animse  causam  habet  contagio  ;  sed  quia  a  Deo  ita  fuit  ordinatum. 
Beza  rejects  traducia’nism  in  the  most  decided  manner,  Qu.  47  :  Doctrina 
de  animse  traduce  mihi  perabsurda  videtur,  quoniam  aut  totam  animam  aut 
partem  ejus  traduci  oporteret. — Comp.  Peter  Martyr ,  Thesis  705  :  Animse 
non  sunt  omnes  simul  creatse  ab  initio,  sed  creantur  quotidie  a  Deo  corpori- 
bus  inserendse. — Polanus ,  p.  2183  :  Eodem  momento  Dens  creat  animam 
simul  et  unit  corpori  infecto. — Hucanus,  p.  92  :  Quod  totum  genus  human um 
ab  Adamo  corruptum  est,  non  tam  ex  genitura  provenit.  .  .  .quam  ex  justa 
Dei  vindicta.  Other  passages  are  quoted  by  De  Wette ,  Dogmatik,  p.  89. 
Schiveizer ,  i.  452,  sq. 

3  The  fall  of  our  first  parents  was  called  peccatum  originans,  in  distinction 
from  original  sin  (peccatum  originale,  originatum).  The  causa  externa" 
prima  et  principalis,  was  Satan,  the  causa  instrumentalis  was  the  serpent,  by 
which  we  are  to  understand  a  real  serpent  possessed  with  the  devil.  Ger¬ 
hard ,  Loc.  x.  §  8,  p.  295,  endeavors  to  reconcile  the  too  literal  interpretation 
of  Josephus  (Antiq.  3  [1]),  with  the  allegorising  exposition  of  Philo  (De 
Mundi  Opif.  f.  46)  by  saying :  Nos  nec  nudum,  nec  mere  allegoricum,  sed 
diabolo  obsessum  ac  stipatum  serpentem  hie  describi  statuimus.  (He  proves 
this  at  some  length  from  the  twofold  nature  of  the  serpent,  and  the  curse 
pronounced  upon  the  devil  no  less  than  upon  the  serpent.)  Compare  the 
passages  from  other  theologians  in  De  Wette ,  p.  94,  and  in  Hase,  Ilutterus 
Redivivus,  p.  202. — The  Reformed  theologians  entered  into  similar  investi¬ 
gations.  This  was  the  case,  e.  g.  with  Heidegger ,  x.  10.  In  ch.  14,  he  de¬ 
scribes  the  peOodeia  tentationis  satanicae,  and  then  proceeds  (in  the  subsequent 
chapters,  especially  ch.  18)  to  measure  out  the  guilt  of  man.  Adam’s  fall 


§  248.  Anthropology. 


265 


was  not  particularis,  but  generalis. . .  .Non  simplex,  sed  concatenatum  pec- 
catum  fuit,  et  universge  legis,  amoris  Dei  et  proximi  violationem  involvit.  He 
transgressed  the  laws  both  of  the  first  and  second  table.  His  guilt  was  consid¬ 
erably  increased,  partly  because,  having  received  so  many  blessings  from  the 
hand  of  God,  he  could  have  no  inducement  to  sin,  partly  because  the  com¬ 
mand  was  in  itself  easy  to  be  complied  with.  Other  circumstances  also, 
such  as  time  and  place  (i.  e.  his  recent  creation  and  his  abode  in  para¬ 
dise),  added  to  his  guilt,  as  well  as  his  high  office  in  his  capacity  as  the 
father  of  the  human  race.  Accedit,  quod  (peccatum  Adse)  radix  fuit  omnium 
peccatorum  et  velut  equus  Trojan  us,  ex  cujus  utero  et  iliis  innumera  peccata 
omniumque  malorum  Ilias  prodierunt,  ut  gravissimum  hoc  peccatum  et  apos- 
tasiam  a  Deo  vivente  fuisse,  dubitari  nullo  modo  possit.  In  ch.  19,  he  ex¬ 
amines  (after  the  example  of  the  scholastics)  the  question,  whether  Adam 
had  the  greater  guilt,  or  Eve  ?  which  he  thus  decides :  Nobis  Scriptura 
utcunque  innuere  videtur,  gravius  peccasse  Adamum,  cum  non  tarn  Evse, 
quam  Adami  peccatum  accuset  (Eom.  v.  12  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  22).  In  ch.  20  he 
treats  of  the  share  which  God  had  in  the  fall  :  Nec  Deus  spectator  otiosus 
fuit.  Nam  ante  peccatum  turn  lege  illud  vetuit,  turn  comminatione  ab  eo 
hominem  deterruit.  In  peccato  et  explorationis  causa  hominem  sibi  reli- 
quit,  et  patrato  jam  ab  Eva  peccato,  oculos  ejusdem  ad  agnoscendam  nudi- 
tatem  prius  non  aperuit,  quam  Adam  etiam  peccasset.  Post  illud  immediate 
judicium  in  peccatores  exercuit.  .  . .  et  in  remedium  peccati  Christum  7ipo- 
KexELpoTovrjfievov  revelavit.  Nevertheless  he  modestly  adds  :  In  modo, 
quern  divina  providentia  circa  peccatum  adhibuit  explicando  cogitationes  et 
linguae  nostrae  ita  fraenandae  sunt,  ut  cogitemus  semper  Deum  in  coelo  esse, 
nos  in  terra,  eum  fabricatorem  esse,  nos  ejus  plasma.  Cumque  intelligere, 
quomodo  creati  simus,  non  valeamus,  multo  equidem  minus  intelligere  pos- 
sumus,  quomodo  facti  ad  imaginem  Dei  mutari  potuerimus,  ut  tamen  non 
independenter  homo  egerit ,  et  Deus  malum  non  fecerit.  Comp.  Gerhard , 
§  14>  ss.,  §  25  :  Maneat  ergo  firmum  fixum,  Deum  non  decrevisse  nec  voluisso 
istum  protoplastorum  lapsum,  nec  impulisse  eos  ad  peccatum,  nec  eo  delec- 
tatem  fuisse,  etc. 

4  Gerhard ,  Loci,  x.  c.  3,  ss.  §  51  :  Per  hominem  victum  tota  natura  cor- 
rupta  est  et  quasi  fermentata  peccato. — §  52  :  Peccatum  illud  (Adami)  non 
est  modis  omnibus  a  nobis  alienum,  quia  Adam  non  ut  privatus  homo,  sed 
ut  caput  totius  humani  generis  peccavit;  atque  ut  natura  human  a  per  ipsum 
communicata  fit  propria  cuique  personae  ex  ipso  genitae,  sic  et  naturae  cor- 
ruptio  per  propagationem  communicatur.  Ac  proinde  quemadmodum  tribus 
Levitica  inclusa  lumbis  Abrahae  docimas  obtulisse  Melchisedecho  dicitur 
(Hebr.  vii.  9),  ita  et  nos,  qui  in  lumbis  Adae  peccantis  delituimus,  in  et  cum 
ipso  non  modo  corrupti,  sed  et  rei  irae  Dei  facti  surnus.  His  views  are  more 
fully  developed,  c.  5. — According  to  Heidegger ,  x.  44,  ss.,  not  only  the  po- 
tentice  naturales  (superiores :  mens  et  voluntas ;  inferiores  :  sensitiva  et 
vegetativa)  are  subject  to  corruption,  but  also  the  qualitates :  conscience  it¬ 
self  has  become  erring,  and  the  bodily  organs  are  affected  by  the  general 
corruption  (Matt.  v.  29,  30).  Concerning  the  nature  of  original  sin  it  is 
said,  c.  50  :  Neque  peccatum  originate  merus  reatus  peccati  alieni,  jieque 
concupiscentia  sola  proprie,  neque  uuda  j ustitise  carentia  est.  Sed  late  ac* 


266 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


ceptum  peccati  alieni  imputatione,  et  labe  omnibus  facultatibus  inhaerente, 
easque  turn  a  bono  avertente,  turn  ad  malum  convertente,  quam  utramque 
distinctus  reatus  sequitur;  stride  vero  pro  solo  eo,  quod  nascentibus  seu 
orientibus  inest,  labe  ea  facultatibus  insita,  quam  etiam  proprius  reatus 
sequitur,  constat.  Cum  enim  peccatum  pertineat  ad  facilitates  bominis,  ab 
iis  non  est  disced endum.  Itaque  cum  peccatum  originis  non  pertineat  ad 
opera,  quae  a  facultatibus  illis  procedunt,  neque  est  in  ipsis  illis,  ceil  spiri- 
tualis  qusedam  lepra  haereat.  For  tbe  views  of  other  Reformed  divines,  see 
Schweizer ,  p.  54,  sq.  t 

6  Sin  was  defined  as — illegalitas  seu  difformitas  a  lege  divina,  or  as — 
defectus  vel  inclinatio  vel  actio  pugnans  cum  lege  Dei,  offeudens  Deum, 
damnata  a  Deo,  et  faciens  reos  seternae  irae  et  aeternarum  poenarum,  nisi  si 
facta  remissio.  By  the  contingence  of  sin  was  understood  the  (abstract)  pos¬ 
sibility  of  its  being  or  not  being,  in  distinction  from  (physical)  necessity. 
A  distinction  was  made  between  peccatum  originale  (habituate)  and  actuale  ; 
and  actual  sins  were  further  divided  into  peccata  voluntaria  et  involuntaria, 
peccata  commissionis  et  omissionis,*  peccata  interiora  et  exteriora,  or,  peccata 
cordis,  oris  et  operis,  etc.  Comp.  Gerhard ,  Loci,  Tom.  v.  ab.  initio.  Hei¬ 
degger,  c.  52,  ss.,  and  other  passages  quoted  by  De  Wette ,  1.  c. 

6  The  views  of  Calixt ,  which  he  held  at  an  early  period  of  his  life,  were 
laid  down  in  a  collected  form  in  his  Dissertat.  de  Peccato  (written  a.  d. 
1611) ;  see  G.  Calixti  de  praecipuis  christianse  Religionis  Capitibus  Disputa- 
tiones  XV.,  ed.  a  F.  U.  Calixto ,  Helmst.,  1658,  4,  Disput.  V.  He  combated 
Traducianism  (comp,  note  2),  and  deduced  from  it  the  following  posi¬ 
tions  :  Thes.  33  :  Quare  peccatum  originis  in  nobis  non  est  ipsa  culpa  a 
parentibus  commissa,  et  quia  culpa  non  est,  nec  est  reatus,  quum  aperte 
quoque  scriptum  sit  (Ezech.  xviii.  20)  :  Filius  non  portabit  iniquitatem 
patris,  si  videlicet  ipsa  earn  non  adprobet  aut  imitetur.— -Thes.  56  :  Yera  et 
sincera  est  sententia,  quam  proposuimus,  quod  scilicet  peccatum  originis  non 
sit  ipsa  culpa  Adae,  nec  sit  reatus  consequens  culpam,  verum  pravitas  naturae, 
non  tamen  sine  relatione  ad  primam  culpam,  cujus  est  tamquam  effectus 
immediate  consequens. . .  .  Haeret  itaque  in  nobis  aliquid,  et  peccatum  origi¬ 
nale  dicitur,  quod  non  est  ipsa  ilia  prima  Adae  praevaricatio,  sed  aliquid  aliud 
ab  ipsa  manans.  Thes.  57  :  Optime  autem  cognoscitur  ex  opposita  integri-_ 
tate,  quae  sicuti  in  intellectua  erat  cognitio,  in  voluntate  amor  et  pronitas  ad 
benefaciendum,  in  adpetitu  obsequium  et  concordia  cum  superioribus  facul¬ 
tatibus,  ita  pravitas  haec  in  intellectu  est  ignorantia,  in  voluntate  pronitas  ad 
malefaciendum,  in  adpetitu  rebellio.  Thes.  58  :  Et  sicuti  in  integritate  sive 
ad  imaginem  Dei  conditus  erat  homo,  ita  nunc  in  pravitate  sive  ad  imaginem 
Adae  gignitur.  Thes.  59  :  Et  sicuti  homo  si  non  peccasset,  integritas  natu- 
ram  humanam  semper  et  inseparabiliter  consequuta  fuisset,  et  una  cum  ilia 
ad  posteros  propagata,  ita,  postquam  homo  peccavit,  pravitas  earn  concomi- 
tatur  et  propagatur.  Thes.  60 :  Et  sicuti  integritas  fuisset  tamquam  actus 
primus,  actus  autem  secundus  ex  illo  primo  natus,  studium  et  exercitium  in- 
tegritatis,  ita  nunc  pravitas  ista  connata  est  actus  primus,  actus  autem 

*  There  were  special  investigations  about  the  Sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  being  “tris- 
tissiraa  species  peccati  mortalis.  Gerhard,  Loci  Theol.,  v.  p.  84.  Quenstedt,  ii.  p.  80. 
Gass,  p.  360 


§  248.  Anthropology. 


267 


8e cun dus  est  pravitas  pravum  actum  producens.  Tlies.  93,  (in  which 
he  opposes  Flacius)  he  says :  Pejor  autem  haeresis  quam  Manichaeorum, 
adserere  substantiam  humanam  esse  peccatum,  et  hanc  nihilominus  a 
Deo  propagari  et  conservari.  Ita  enim  peccatum  a  Deo  propagabitur  et  con- 
servabitur,  et  Deus  O.  M.  auctor  peccati  constituetur.  In  Thes.  88,  and  in 
some  other  places,  Calixt  maintained  (like  S trigel)  that  original  sin  is  an 
accidens. — Lakermann  (who  lived  in  Konigsberg  from  1644-46),  a  disciple 
of  Calixt,  asserted  in  one  of  his  theses — quod  gratia  Dei  ita  offertur,  ut,  ea  ob- 
lata,  in  hominis  potestate  sit,  per  illam  ea,  quse  ad  conversionem  et  salutem 
necessaria  sint,  prsestare ;  in  another:  Omnes,  si  velint,  possunt  se  conver- 
tere ;  further  :  Solum  peccatum  originale  post  lapsum  adsequata  causa  dam- 
nationis  esse  non  potest.  Such  sentiments  were  in  the  opinion  of  Prof. 
Mislenta ,  grossly  and  dangerously  erroneous.  Thus  the  signal  was  given  for 
a  general  controversy,  in  which  Calixt  himself,  and  his  colleague  Conrad 
Hornejus ,  took  part.  In  consequence  of  the  efforts  made  by  Calov ,  the  views 
of  Calixt  and  his  adherents  were  condemned  (a.  d.  1655)  in  the  Consensus 
Repetitus  Fidei  verse  Lutlieranse,  in  which  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  original 
sin  was  set  forth  in  the  most  rigid  terms.  Thus,  in  particular,  Punct.  23-29 
(in  Henke ,  p.  18  sq.).  For  the  passages  see  Neudecker  (Fortsetzung  von 
Munscker ,  ed.  by  Von  Colin)  p.  440.  On  the  controversy  in  general,  comp. 
Planck ,  Geschichte  der  protestantischen  Theologie,  p.  107  ss.  Gass ,  Georg 
Calixt  und  der  Synkretismus,  1846,  p.  68  ss.,  p.  98.  '[Schmid,  Gesch.  der 
Synkret.  Streitigkeiten,  1846.  Baur,  d.  Calixt.  Synkretismus,  in  Theol. 
Jahrbilcher,  vii.  Henke ,  Calixtus  und  seine  Zeit,  1853-60.  Gieseler,  Church 
Hist.  (New  York  ed.),;v.§  52.] 

7  In  the  case  of  Spener ,  as  in  that  of  Luther,  personal  experience  led  him 
to  the  knowledge  of  sin,  and  moulded  his  views  concerning  its  nature  ;  thus 
it  happened  that  in  his  system  sin  and  repentance  are  closely  connected  with 
each  other.  He  does  not  wait  till  his  views  of  sin  become  cold  and  indiffer¬ 
ent,  but  he  strikes,  as  it  were,  the  iron  made  red-hot  in  the  furnace  of  in¬ 
ward  experience  while  it  retains  its  heat.  Compare  his  Theologische  Beden- 
ken  (edit,  by  Hennicke),  p.  33  ss. — Nor,  when  he  published  (1687)  his  first 
treatise,  in  Saxony,  under  the  title  “  Natur  und  Gnade,”  was  it  his  intention 
to  present  a  theoretical  contrast  between  nature  and  grace  in  a  scientific  way ; 
but  his  object  being  practical,  he  adopted  popular  forms  of  statement,  and 
did  not  present  the  antagonism  in  all  its  sharpness.  See  Hossbach,  i.  257. 
But  even  his  very  zeal  for  sanctification  was  represented,  and  opposed,  by 
the  orthodox,  as  a  perversion  of  sound  doctrine. 

8  Both  Pietism  and  Jansenism  prove  that  the  system  of  Augustine,  though 
often  charged  with  enfeebling  the  moral  power  of  man,  nevertheless  produces 
deeper  and  more  lasting  effects  than  Pelagianism ;  and  that  the  charge  of 
its  undermining  morality  and  paralysing  the  will,  cannot  be  admitted,  at 
least  in  that  universality  of  application  in  which  it  is  commonly  advanced. 
The  motto  of  Jansenism  here  holds  good :  Dei  servitus,  vera  libertas. 

•  Compare  Pascal’s  Lettres  Provinciales.  Beuchlin ,  Port-Royal,  p.  33,  ss. 
631  ss. 


268 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


B.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION. 

§  249. 

FREEDOM  AND  GRACE.  PREDESTINATION.  (ACCORDING  TO  THE  DIF¬ 
FERENT  CONFESSIONS.) 


\Schweizer  Glaubenslehre  der  Reform.  Kirche,  1844,  and  Central  Dogmen,  1854.  Ebrard , 
Das  Yerhaltniss  d.  reform.  Dogmatik  zum  Determinismus,  1849,  and  Schweizer,  in 
reply,  in  the  Tiibinger  Zeitschrift,  1851.  Heppe,  Dogmatik  der  evangel.  Ref.  Kirche, 
1861.  J.  B.  Mozley ,  Doctrine  of  Predestination,  1855  ;  comp.  Christian  Remembran¬ 
cer,  and  Dublin  Review,  1856.  Moses  Stuart,  on  Calvin  and  Arminius,  in  Biblical 
Repository,  i.,  1834.  Bp.  Davenant ,  De  Prmdestinatione,  1630,  fol.  Owen's  works, 
vols.  x.,  xi.  Julius  Mahler  in  Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1856  ;  that  Calvin’s  doctrine  had 
a  religious,  and  not  a  speculative  basis.  Calvin’s  Pradestinationslehre,  in  Schaff's 
Kircheufreund,  1853.  Bartels ,  Die  Pradestinationslehre  in  Ostfriesland  (John  a 
Lasco),  in  Zeitschrift  f.  deutsche  Theologie,  1860.  J.  A.  L.  Hebart,  Die  Pradest. 
lehre  d.  Concordienformel,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  Luth.  Theologie,  1861.  Philippi ,  Lu¬ 
ther’s  Lehre  von  d.  Predestination,  in  Theol.  Zeitschrift,  I860.] 

Notwithstanding  the  many  religions  conflicts  to  which  tile  Ref¬ 
ormation  gave  rise,  Christians  of  all  denominations  agreed  in  the 
general  belief,  that  the  salvation  of  man  depends  on  the  gracious 
purpose  of  God.1  But  they  differed  on  the  questions,  whether  the 
Divine  decree,  which  has  reference  to  this  point,  is  unconditional,  or 
depends  on  the  conduct  of  man,  whether  it  is  general  or  particular. 
The  more  rigid  the  views  of  theologians  on  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  and  the  moral  inability  of  man,  the  more  firmly  they  would 
maintain  that  the  decrees  of  God  are  unconditional.  Hence  it  is  not 
surprising  that  Roman  Catholics,2  Arminians,3  and  most  of  all  the 
Socinians,4  endeavoured  in  a  more  or  less  Pelagian  manner,  to  sat¬ 
isfy  the  claims  of  human  freedom.  On  the  other  hand,  both  Lu¬ 
therans  and  Reformed,  following  Augustine,  rejected  the  notion  of 
the  freedom  of  the  will,  and  denied  all  co-operation  on  the  part  of 
man.5  Nevertheless,  it  is  a  striking  fact,  that  the  Lutherans  avoided 
the  strict  consequences  of  the  Augustinian  system,  and  asserted  that 
the  decrees  of  God  are  conditional  ;6  while  the  Reformed  theologians 
not  only  admitted  the  necessity  of  those  consequences,7  but,  having 
once  determined  the  idea  of  predestination,  went  beyond  the  prem¬ 
ises  so  far  as  to  maintain,  that  the  fall  of  man  itself  was  predesti¬ 
nated  by  God  ( Supralapsarianism.y  But  this  view  so  far  from 
meeting  with  general  approbation,  was  at  last  almost  entirely  aban¬ 
doned  to  make  way  for  its  opposite  ( Infralapsarianism ).9  As 
regards  the  extent  of  the  offered  grace,  all  the  confessions,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Reformed,  held  to  universalism,10  in  distinction 
from  particularism  ;  but  even  all  Calvinists  did  not  on  this  point 
proceed  to  the  same  length  some  of  them  adopted  the  stand- 


§  249.  Freedom  and  Grace.  Predestination. 


269 


point  of  the  universality  of  the  provisions  of  grace.  [The  West¬ 
minster  Assembly  set  forth  the  doctrines  of  sin  and  redemption,  so 
as  to  harmonise  the  conflicting  views  about  freedom  and  grace  ;  the 
scheme  of  absolute  predestination  was  here  modified  by  the  theory  of 
the  covenants.]12 

1  Compare  the  passages  quoted  by  Winer ,  pp.  80,  81. 

3  Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  vi.,  can.  4  :  Sicut  quis  dixerit,  liberum  arbitrium  a  Deo 
motum  et  excitatum  nihil  cooperari  assentiendo  Deo  excitanti  atque  vocanti, 
quo  ad  obtinendam  justificationis  gratiam  se  disponat  ac  praeparet,  neque 
posse  dissentire,  si  velit,  sed  velut  inanime  quoddam  nihil  omnino  agere,  mere- 
que  passive  se  habere:  anathema  sit. — Can.  17  :  Si  quis  justificationis  gra¬ 
tiam  nonnisi  prsedestinatis  ad  vitam  contingere  dixerit,  reliquos  vero  omnes, 
qui  vocantur,  vocari  quidem,  sed  gratiam  non  accipere,  utpote  divina  potes- 
-  tate  praedestinatos  ad  malum  :  anathema  sit.  The  doctrine  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Symbols  was  in  so  far  decidedly  opposed  to  the  Pelagians,  as  the 
former  maintained  (Sess.  6,  can.  3)  that  it  is  God  who  begins  the  work  of 
conversion  without  any  co-operation  on  the  part  of  man ;  but  they  also 
asserted  that  afterwards  the  freewill  must  be  added,  and  man  co-operate  in 
the  work  of  sanctification. — For  further  passages,  see  Winer,  p.  84.  Bellar- 
mine  advances  the  following  proposition  (in  opposition  to  Pelagians,  etc.), 
at  the  very  commencement  of  his  treatise :  de  Gratia  et  lib.  Arbitr. :  Auxi- 
lium  gratiae  Dei  non  ita  offertur  omnibus  hominibus,  ut  Deus  expectet  homines, 
qui  illud  desiderent  vel  postulent,  sed  praevenit  omnia  desideria  et  omnem 
invocationem.  In  ch.  2,  he  then  proceeds  to  assert :  Auxilium  gratiae  Dei 
non  aequaliter  omnibus  adest.  Thus  far  he  agrees  with  the  Protestants. 
He  even  adds,  in  ch.  3  :  Nulla  esset  in  Deo  iniquitas,  si  non  solum  aliquibus, 
sed  etiam  omnibus  hominibus  auxilium  sufficiens  ad  salutem  negaret.  He 
likewise  in  ch.  4,  gives  the  practical  caution  (after  the  example  of  Augus¬ 
tine),  not  to  doubt  aforehand  the  salvation  of  any  one,  but  to  persevere  in 
admonishing,  etc.  But  in  ch.  5,  he  converts  this  practical  advice  into  the 
doctrinal  theory  :  Auxilium  sufficiens  ad  salutem  pro  loco  et  tempore,  medi¬ 
tate  vel  immediate  omnibus  datur  (a  proposition  which  is  somewhat  limited 
and  more  fully  discussed  in  the  subsequent  chapters).  And  then  in  the 
sequel  (in  Books  ii.  and  iii)  he  endeavours  to  save  the  doctrine  of  free  will. 
In  his  view,  free  will  is  not  the  condition  of  being  free,  but  the  power  of 
choosing,  and  of  forming  purposes.  It  is  neither  actus  nor  habitus,  but  po- 
tentia,  and,  in  specie,  potentia  activa.  On  the  co-operation  of  the  free  will 
with’  the  grace  of  God,  he  says,  iv.  c.  15  :  Hinc  sequitur,  ut  neque  Deus  de- 
terminet  sive  necessitet  voluntatem,  neque  voluntas  Deum.  Nam  et  uterque 
concursum  suum  libere  adhibet,  et  si  alter  nolit  concurrere,  opus  non  fiet. 
Simile  est,  cum  duo  ferunt  ingentem  lapidem,  quern  unus  ferre  non  posset ; 
neuter  enim  alteri  vires  addit,  aut  eum  impellit,  et  utrique  liberum  est  onus 
relinquere.  Quamquam  Deus,  nisi  extrordinarie  miraculum  operari  velit, 
semper  concurrit,  quando  voluntas  nostra  concurrit,  quoniam  ad  hoc  se  libere 
quodam  modo  obligavit,  quando  liberam  voluntatem  creavit.  Ex  quo  etiam 
sequitur,  ut,  licet  in  eodem  prorsus  momento  temporis  et  naturae  Deus  et  vo¬ 
luntas  operari  incipiant,  tamen  Deus  operetur,  quia  voluntas  operatur,  non  con 


270 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


tra.  Et  hoc  est,  quod  aliqui  dicunt,  voluntatem  prius  natura  operari  quam 
Deum,  non  prioritate  instantis  in  quo,  sed  a  quo. —  Concerning  Predestina¬ 
tion,  he  expresses  himself  as  follows,  ibid.,  p.  657  :  Deus  ab  aeterno  determi- 
navit  omnes  effectus,  sed  non  ante  praevisionem  determinationis  causarum 
secundarum,  praesertim  contingentium  et  liberarum,  et  rursus  determinavit 
omnes  effectus,  sed  non  eodem  modo  :  alios  enim  determinavit  futuros  se 
operante  vel  cooperante,  alios  se  permittente,  vel  non  impediente,  etc. — lb., 
p.  659  :  Deus,  qui  perfecte  cognoscit  omnes  propensiones  et  totum  ingenium 
animi  nostri,  et  rursum  non  ignorat  omnia,  quae  illi  possunt  occurrere  in  sin- 
gulis  deliberationibus,  et  denique  perspectum  habet,  quid  majus  congruum  et 
aptum  sit,  moveat  talem  animum  tali  propensione  et  ingenio  praeditum,  infal- 
libiliter  colligit,  quam  in  partem  animus  sit  inclinaturus. 

3  “  The  Arminians  suppose  a  constant  cooperation  of  the  human  will , 
awakened  by  divine  grace ,  with  that  grace  ;  but  in  their  opinion  the  influence 
of  the  latter  is  by  no  means  merely  of  a  moral  nature  ;  it  is  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  accompanying  the  Word  of  God  (Confess.  Remonstr.,  17,  2,  5), 
which  exerts  an  influence  upon  the  mind,  and  is  supernatural  as  regards  its 
nature,  but  analogous  to  the  natural  power  of  all  truth,  as  regards  the  mode 
of  its  operation .”  Winer,  p.  86,  where  passages  are  quoted  from  the  Con¬ 
fess.,  and  Apol.  Confess-.  Remonstr.  [Comp.  Stuart,  in  Bibl.  Repos.,  i.,  as 
cited  above.]  Comp,  also  Episcopii  Institute,  v.,  p.  5  ss.  Limborch,  Theol. 
Christ.,  Lib.  iv.,  ab  init.,  cap.  12,  §  15:  Concludimus  itaque,  quod  gratia 
divina,  per  Evangelium  nobis  revelata,  sit  principium,  progressus  et  comple- 
mentum  omnis  salutaris  boni,  sine  cujus  cooperatione  nullum  salutare  bonum 

ne  cogitare  quidem,  multo  minus  perficere,  possimus. — Cap.  14,  §  21  ; . 

Gratia  Dei  primaria  est  fidei  causa,  sine  qua  non  posset  homo  recte  libero 
arbitrio  uti.  Perinde  est,  ac  si  duobus  captivis  carceri  inelusis,  et  vinculis  et 
compedibus  arte  constrectis,  quidam  superveniat,  qui  carcerem  aperiat,  vincula 
demat,  et  egrediendi  facultatem  largiatur,  quin  et  manu  apprehensa  eos  sua- 
viter  trahat  et  hortetur  ut  exeant :  unus  autem  occasione  hac  commoda  uta- 
tur,  libertatemque  oblatam  apprehendat  et  e  carcere  egrediatur ;  alter  vero 
beneficium  istud  liberationis  contemnat  et  in  carcere  manere  velit;  nemo 
dicet  ilium  libertatis  suae  esse  causam,  non  vero  eum  qui  carcerem  aperuit,  eo 
quod  aperto  carcere,  perinde  uti  alter,  non  egredi  et  in  captivitate  remanere 
potuit.  Dices :  Ergo  liberum  arbitrium,  cooper atur  cum  gratia  ?  Resp. :  Fa-~ 
temur,  alias  nulla  obedientia  aut  inobedientia  hominis  locum  habet.  Dices : 
An  cooperatio  liberi  arbitrii  non  est  bonum  salutare  ?  Resp. :  Omnino.  Dices  : 
Ergo  gratia  non  est  primaria  causa  salutis  ?  Resp.  :  Non  est  solitaria,  sed  tamen 
'primaria  ;  ipsa  enim  liberi  arbitrii  cooperatio  est  a  gratia  tamquam  primaria 
causa:  nisi  enim  a  praeveniente  gratia  liberum  arbitrium  excitatum  esset, 
gratise  cooperari  non  posset.  Dices:  Qui  potestatem  habet  credendi,  non 
salvatur,  sed  qui  actu  credit :  cum  itaque  prius  tantum  sit  a  Deo,  posterius  a 
nobis,  sequitur,  nos  nostri  salvatores  esse.  Respondeo  1.  Quonium  sine  po- 
testate  credendi  actu  credere  non  possumus,  sequitur  eum,  qui  credendi  potes- 
tatem  largitus  est,  etiam  actus  fidei  primariam  esse  causam.  Unde  et  in 
Scriptura  uni  gratiae  plerumque  tides  et  conversio  nostra  adscribi  solet :  quia 
....  solenne  est,  opera  magna  et  eximia  adscribi  causae  principali,  minus 
principalium  nulla  saepe  mentione  facta.  Quod  et  hie  usu  venit,  ut  homo 


§  249.  Freedom  and  Grace.  Predestination.  271 


semper  beneficii  divini  memor  agnosceret  se  nullas  ex  seipso  ad  tan  turn  bo- 
nnm  consequendum  vires  babere.  Non  tantum  enim  quod  possimus  velle, 
sed  et  quod  actu  velimus,  gratiae  debetur,  quse  nos  praevenit,  excitat  et  im- 
pellit  ad  volendum  et  agendum,  ita  tamen,  ut  possimus  non  velle.  2.  Certo 
sensu  concedi  potest,  hominem  sui  ipsius  servatorem  esse,  Scriptura  ipsa  ab 
ejusmodi  loquendi  ratione  non  abhorrente.  Phil.  ii.  12. 

4  Sebastian  Frank ,  Servetus ,  and  others,  were  the  forerunners  of  this 
tendency ;  see  Schenkel ,  Wesen  des  Protest,  ii.  96,  sq.  But  it  was  the 
Socinians  whose  views  chiefly  savoured  of  Pelagianism.  Comp.  Cat.  Racov. 
qu.  422  :  Estne  liberum  arbitrium  situm  in  nostra  potestate,  ut  Deo  obtem- 
peremus  ?  Prorsus.  Etenim  certum  est,  primum  hominem  ita  a  Deo  con- 
ditum  fuisse,  ut  libero  arbitrio  praeditus  esset.  Nec  vero  ulla  causa  subest, 
cur  Deus  post  ejus  lapsum  ilium  eo  privaret.  Other  passages  are  given  by 
Winer.  Comp,  also  F.  Socinus ,  Praelect.  Theol.  c.  5,  and  De  libero  Horn. 
Arbitrio  deque  aeterna  Dei  Praedestinatione,  scriptum  J.  J.  Grynaeo  oblatum 
(Opp.  i.  pp.  780,  781).  Joh.  Crellii  Ethica  Christ.  (Bibl.  Fratr.  Pol.)  p. 
262.  The  Socinians,  like  the  Pelagians,  supposed  divine  grace  to  consist 
especially  in  the  external  institutions  of  God,  not  excluding  its  internal  effects 
upon  the  mind.  Cat.  Rac.  qu.  428-30  :  Auxilium  divinum  duplex  est,  in- 
terius  et  exterius.  (Exterius  aux.  div.)  sunt  promissa  et  minae,  quorum  tamen 
promissa  vim  habent  longe  majorem.  Unde  etiam,  quod  sint  sub  novo 
foedere  longe  praestantiora  promissa,  quam  sub  vetere  fuerint,  facilius  est  sub 
novo,  quam  sub  vetere  foedere  voluntatem  Dei  facere.  (Interius  auxil.  div.) 
est  id,  cum  Deus  in  cordibus  eorum,  qui  ipsi  obediunt,  quod  promisit  (vitam 
aeternam)  obsignat. — Pag.  251  (in  the  revised  edition) :  Spir.  S.  ejusmodi 
Dei  afflatus  est,  quo  animi  nostri  vel  uberiore  rerum  divinarum  notitia  vel 
spe  vitise  aeternae  certiore  atque  adeo  gaudio  ac  gustu  quodam  futurae  felici- 
tatis  aut  singulari  adore  complentur.  For  further  passages  see  Winer. 
Socinus  thought  assisting  grace  necessary,  because  the  will  of  most  men  is 
weakened  (not  on  account  of  Adam,  but  because  of  their  own  frequent 
transgressions);  comp,  the  treatise  mentioned  above.  He  rejected  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  predestination,  as  destructive  of  all  true  religion ;  comp.  Praelect.  Theol. 
c.  6  ss.  Fock ,  u.  s.  662,  sq. 

5  As  early  as  the  disputation  of  Leipsic,  Luther  compared  man  to  a  saw, 
which  is  a  passive  instrument  in  the  hand  of  the  carpenter ;  see  Mohler , 
Symbolik,  p.  106.  Comp.  Comment,  in  Genes,  c.  19  :  In  spiritualibus  et 
divinis  rebus,  quae  ad  animae  salutem  spectant,  homo  est  instar  statuse  salis,  in 
quam  uxor  Patriarchs  Loth  est  conversa ;  imo  est  similis  trunco  et  lapidi, 
statuae  vita  carenti,  quae  neque  oculorum,  oris  aut  ullorum  sensuum  cordisque 
usum  habet. — But  it  was  especially  in  his  treatise  :  De  Servo  Arbitrio, 
against  Erasmus,  that  he  expressed  himself  in  the  strongest  terms ;  the 
many  instances  in  which  God  exhorts  man  to  keep  his  commandments,  ap¬ 
peared  to  him  ironical,  as  if  a  father  were  to  say  to  his  child :  “  Come,’ 
while  he  knows  that  he  cannot  come  (see  Galle ,  Melancthon,  p.  270,  note; 
Schenkel ,  ii.  81,  sq.)  In  respect  to  predestination,  see  his  letter  to  an  anony¬ 
mous  person  (No.  2622  in  De  Wette)  ( Seidemann ),  vi.  p.  427  :  Per  Chris¬ 
tum  certi  facti  sumus,  omnem  credentem  a  Patre  esse  praedestinatum.  Omnem 
enim  pnedestinavit,  etiam  vocavit  per  evangelium,  ut  credat  et  per  fidem  jus- 


272 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


■ 

tificetar. .  .  .  Nam  vernm  est,  Deum  aliquos  ex  hominibus  aliis  rejectis  ad 
aeternam  vitara  elegisse  et  destinasse  antequara  jacerentur  fundaraeiita 
mundi.  Sed  quia  Deus  in  abscondito  habitat  et  judieia  ejus  occulta  sunt, 
non  licet  nobis  tantam  profunditatem  assequi. — Melancthon  also  advanced 
more  rigid  views  in  the  first  edition  of  his  Loci,  than  in  the  subsequent  ones. 
Comp.  Galle,  p.  247-326. — In  accordance  with  these  views  the  Confession 
of  Augsburg  asserts,  c.  18  :  De  libero  arbitrio  docent,  quod  humana  voluntas 
habeat  aliquam  libertatem  ad  efficiendam  civilem  justitiam  et  deligendas  res 
rationi  subjectas.  Sed  non  habet  vim  sine  Spiritu  Sancto  efficiendae  justitise 
Dei  seu  justitise  spiritualis,  quia  animalis  homo  non  percipit  ea,  quae  sunt 
Spiritus  Dei  (1  Cor.  ii.  14),  sed  liaec  fit  in  cordibus,  cum  per  verbum  Spir.  S. 
concipitur. — Similar  principles  were  set  forth  in  the  symbols  of  the  Reformed 
churches  ;  comp.  Conf.  Helv.  I.  Art.  9,  ii.  9  :  Proinde  nullum  est  ad  bonum 
homini  arbitrium  liberum,  nondum  renato,  vires  nullae  ad  perficiendum 
bouum,  etc.  (for  the  other  symbols  see  Winer ,  pp.  81,  82.) — The  change 
wdiich  took  place  in  the  opinions  of  Melancthon  gave  rise  to  the  synergistic 
controversy,  see  Planck,  iv.  p.  584,  ss.,  Galle ,  p.  326,  ss.  [Comp.  Gieseler , 
Church  Hist.  iv.  pp.  444,  sgy]  It  is  declared  in  the  Refutation  which  was 
published,  Jena,  1557,  p.  36,  b.  (quoted  by  Planck ,  p.  598)  :  Fugiamus  ac 
detestemur  dogma  eorum,  qui  argute  philosophantur,  mentem  et  voluntatem 
hominis  in  conversione  seu  renovatione,  esse  ovvepyov  seu  causam  concur- 
rentum,  cum  et  Deo  debitum  honorem  eripiat,  et  suos  defensores,  ut  Augus¬ 
tinus  inquit,  magis  praecipitet  ac  temeraria  confidentia  labefactet,  quam  sta- 
biliat.  The  same  doctrine  is  propounded  in  the  Formula  Concordiae,  p.  662  : 
Antequam  homo  per  Spir.  S.  illuminatur,  convertitur,  regeneratur  et  trahitur, 
ex  sese  et  propriis  naturalibus  suis  viribus  in  rebus  spiritualibus  et  ad  con- 
versionem  aut  regeneration em  suam,  nihil  inchoare,  operari  aut  cooperari 
potest,  nec  plus  quam  lapis,  truncus  aut  limus.  On  the  further  dogmatic 
statements,  see  Heppe ,  p.  426. 

6  The  Formula  Concordiae,  p.  617-619,  endeavors  to  avoid  this  difficulty, 
by  drawing  a  distinction  between  praedestinatio  et  praescientia :  Praescientia 
enim  Dei  nihil  aliud  est,  quam  quod  Deus  omnia  noverit,  antequam  fiant. 
....  Haec  praescientia  Dei  simul  ad  bonos  et  malos  pertinet,  sed  interim  non 
est  causa  mali,  neque  est  causa  peccati,  quae  hominem  ad  scelus  impellat. .  . . 
Neque  haec  Dei  praescientia  causa  est,  quod  homines  pereant ;  hoc  enim  sibr 
ipsis  imputare  debent.  Sed  praescientia  Dei  disponit  malum,  et  metas  illi 
constituit,  quousque  progredi  et  quamdiu  durare  debeat,  idque  eo  dirigit,  ut, 
licet  per  se  malum  sit,  nihilominus  electis  Dei  ad  salutem  cedat.  . .  .Praedes¬ 
tinatio  vero  seu  aeterna  Dei  electio  tantum  ad  bonos  et  dilectos  filios  Dei 
pertinet,  et  haec  est  causa  ipsorum  salutis.  Etenim  eorum  salutem  procurat 
et  ea,  quae  ad  ipsam  pertinent,  disponit.  Super  hanc  Dei  praedestinationem 
salus  nostra  ita  fundata  est,  ut  inferorum  portae  earn  evertere  nequeant.  Haec 
Dei  praedestinatio  non  in  arcano  Dei  consilio  est  scrutanda,  sed  in  verbo  Dei, 
in  quo  revelatur,  quaerenda  est. — Such  definitions  were  the  consequences  of 
the  controversy  with  the  Calvinists.  It  was  occasioned  by  the  controversy 
of  two  theologians  of  Strasburg,  John  Marhach  and  Jerome  Zancliius ,  the 
former  of  whom  belonged  to  the  Lutheran,  the  latter  to  the  Reformed 
Church  ;  see  Planck ,  vi.  p.  809.  [Comp,  the  Doctrine  about  Predestination, 


§  249.  Freedom  and  Grace.  Predestination.  273 

from  Zanchius,  etc.,  in  Toplady’s  Letter  to  Wesley,  reprinted,  New  York, 

1811.] 

7  Among  the  confessions  of  faith  composed  prior  to  the  time  of  Calvin, 
the  first  Confession  of  Basle  declares,  Art.  1  :  “  Therefore  we  confess  that 
God,  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  did  elect  all  those  to  whom  he  will 
give  the  inheritance  of  eternal  blessedness yet  it  is  remarkable  that  this 
statement  is  not  made  in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  but  in 
the  very  first  article,  that  respecting  God.  The  same  is  the  case  with 
Zwingle ,  who  pronounced  decidedly  in  favor  of  predestination,  Ad  Carolum 
Imp.  Fidei  Ratio  (Opp.  ii.  p.  539)  :  Constat  autem  et  firma  manet  Dei  elec- 
tio :  quos  enim  file  elegit  ante  mundi  constitutionem,  sic  elegit,  ut  per  filium 
suum  sibi  cooptaret :  ut  enim  benignus  et  misericors,  ita  sanctus  et  justus 
est,  etc.  He  unfolds  his  views  in  order  in  his  work  De  Providentia  Dei 
(Opera,  iv.  p.  7 9,  sq.).  The  sin  of  Adam,  he  says,  was  included  in  the  pre¬ 
destination,  but  also  redemption.  Comp.  p.  109,  sq.  Pag.  113  :  Est  electio 
libera  divinse  voluntatis  de  beandis  constitutio. . . .  Quemadmodum  legislatori- 
bus  ac  principibus  integrum  est  constituere  ex  sequi  bonique  ratione,  sic 
divinse  majestatis  integrum  est  ex  natura  sua,  quse  ipsa  bonitas  est,  consti 
tuere.  Pag.  115  :  In  destinandis  ad  salutem  hominibus  voluntas  divina 
prima  vis  est :  ancillantur  autem  sapientia,  bonitas,  justitia  et  ceterse  dotes, 
quo  fit,  ut  voluntati  referatur,  non  sapientise. .  .  .non  justitise,  non  liberalitati 
divinse. . .  .Est  igitur  electio  libera,  sed  non  cceca,  divinse  voluntatis,  sed  non 
solius  quantumvis  prsecipuse  causse,  constitutio  eum  majestate  et  auctoritate, 
de  beandis,  non  de  damnandis.  Pag.  140  :  Stat  electio  Dei  firma  et  immota, 
etiamsi  per  filium  suum  prsecepit,  electos  ad  se  transferre. . .  .Firma  manet 
elec.tio,  etiamsi  electus  in  tarn  immania  scelera  prolabatur,  qualia  impii  et 
repudiati  designant. . .  .Testes  sunt  David,  Paulus,  Magdalena,  latro,  alii. — 
Against  the  practical  inference,  that  the  elect  wifi  not  be  harmed,  sin  as 
they  may,  Zwingle  responds  (ibid.) :  Qui  sic  loquuntur,  testimonium  dant, 
aut  se  electos  non  esse,  aut  fidem  ac  Dei  cognitionem  nondum  habere. . . . 
Omnia  cooperantur  electis  ad  bonum  ;  omnia  quoque  circum  illos  divina 
providentia  fiunt,  neque  quicquam  tarn  frivolum  fit,  quod  in  Dei  ordinatione 
ac  opere  frivolum  sit.  Pag.  143  :  Hoc  omnino  irrefragabile  est,  aut  provi- 
dentiam  omnia  curare,  nuspiam  cessare  aut  torpere,  aut  omnino  nullam  esse. 
For  further  particulars  see  Hahn  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1837,  part  4, 
p.  765,  ss. ;  and  on  the  other  side  J.  J.  Herzog,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken, 
1839,  part  4,  p.  778,  ss. — Schweizer ,  ii.  192  ;  Schenkel ,  ii.  386. — From  a 
comparison  instituted  between  Zwingle’s  doctrine  of  predestination,  and  his 
general  views  on  original  sin  and  the  salvation  of  the  heathen  (which  dif¬ 
fered  from  rigid  Augustinianism),  thus  much  is  evident,  that  he  inferred  the 
doctrine  of  predestination  rather  from  his  doctrine  respecting  God  than  from 
his  anthropology,  and  proceeded  from  speculative  rather  than  from  ethical 
principles.  But  this  by  no  means  implies  that  he  bordered  upon  pantheistic 
views. —  Calvin  brought  the  doctrine  of  predestination  into  closer  connection 
with  that  of  original  sin,  Instit.  III.  c.  21-24.  Thus  he  says,  c.  23  :  Iterum 
quaero :  Unde  factum  est,  ut  tot  gentes  una  cum  liberis  eorum  infantibus 
ceternce  morti  involveret  lapsus  Adce  absque  remedio,  nisi  quia  Deo  ita  visum 
est?  Hie  obmutescere  oportet  tarn  dicaces  alioqui  linguas.  Decretum  qui- 

18 


274 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


dem  horribile  fateor ;  inficiari  tamen  nemo  potent,  quin  prsesciverit  Deus, 
quem  exitum  esset  habiturus  homo,  antequam  ipsum  conderet,  et  ideo  prses¬ 
civerit,  quia  decreto  suo  sic  ordinarat.  And  in  the  second  Confess.  Helvet. 
the  articles  concerning  the  fall  of  man  (8),  and  concerning  the  freedom  of 
the  will  (9),  precede,  in  the  order  of  subjects,  that  concerning  predestina¬ 
tion  (10).  Comp,  also  Conf.  Gall.  Art.  12.  Belg.  Art.  16.  Canon.  Dordr. 
i.  1,  etc.,  quoted  by  Winer  ;  see  note  11. 

8  Inst.  III.  c.  23,  §  7,  he  terms  the  exclusion  of  the  fall  of  the  first  man  from 
the  divine  predestination,  a  frigidum  commentum.  Comp.  §  4 :  Quum  ergo 
in  sua  corruptione  pereunt  (homines),  nihil  aliud  quam  poenas  luunt  ejusdem 
calamitatis,  in  quam  ipsius  prcedestinatione  lapsus  est  A.dam  ac  posteros  suos 
prsecipites  secum  traxit. — It  is  on  this  particular  point  that  Calvin  (and  his 
disciple  Beza *)  went  further  than  Augustine,  who  did  not  include  the  fall 
of  Adam  in  the  divine  decrees.  Calvin  infers  the  doctrine  of  predestination 
both  from  ethico-anthropological  and  from  theologico-speculative  premises ; 
in  his  opinion  it  has  a  practical  as  well  as  a  theoretical  aspect.  [But  com¬ 
pare  Julius  Muller  in  his  essay  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  referred  to  in 
the  introduction  to  this  section.] .  The  name  Supralapsarians ,  however, 
does  not  occur  prior  to  the  Synod  of  Dort.  It  was  especially  the  Gomarists 
who  were  favorable  to  the  supralapsarian  scheme.f  “  Though  the  Synod  of 
Dort  hesitated  to  declare  in  favor  of  Supralapsarianism,  yet  this  was,  at  any 
rate,  the  inmost  sense  of  orthodoxy;”  Schweizer ,  ii.  p.  124.  [ Baur ,  Dog- 

mengeschichte,  p.  280  :  “  The  genuine  Protestant  antagonism  to  Catholicism 
is  Calvinism,  and  this,  too,  on  just  that  doctrine,  which  was  at  first  common 
to  all  the  Reformers,  but  was  carried  out  systematically  only  in  Calvinism. 
The  whole  system  of  the  dependence  of  the  individual  upon  a  power,  abso¬ 
lutely  determining  his  will  and  acts,  which  Catholicism  presents  in  its  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  church,  Calvinism  attaches  to  its  absolute  decree.”  Pag.  315  : 
“  Calvin’s  contradictory  assertions  about  sin  received  their  most  paradoxical 
expression  in  his  well  known  formula  :  Cadit  homo ,  divina  providentia  sic 
ordinante ,  sed  suo  vitio  cadit.  From  whatever  side  we  may  consider  the 
matter,  this  position  can  only  have  a  rational  meaning,  when  understood  as 
asserting  that  Adam  was  not  such  a  man  as  God  would  have  him  be,  unless, 

*  On  the  question,  how  far  Luther  was  inclined  to  adopt  such  a  notion  ?  see  Baur ,  in 
his  work  against  Mohler ,  p.  38.  [Beta's  Brief  Declaration  of  the  Table  of  Predestination, 
12mo,  translated,  London,  n.  d.] 

f  Episcopius  Instit.,  v.  5,  thus  defines  the  difference  between  the  two  schemes :  Du¬ 
plex  est  eorum  sententia,  qui  absolutam  hujusmodi  praedestinationis  gratiam  asserunt.  Una 
est  eorum,  qui  statuunt,  decretum  praedestinationis  absolute  a  Deo  ab  aeteruo  factum  esse, 
ante  omnem  homiuis  aut  condendi  aut  conditi  aut  lapsi  (nedum  resipiscentis  et  credentis) 
considerationem  vel  praevisionem.  Hi  Supralapsarii  vocantur.  Altera  est  eorum,  qui 
praedestinationis  istius  objectum  statuunt,  homines  definite  praescitos,  creatos  ac  lapsos. 
Definite ,  inquam,  praescitos,  etc.,  ut  a  prima  sententia  distingtfatur,  quae  statuit,  objectum 
praedestinationis  homines  indefinite  praescitos,  seu  (ut  D.  Gomarus  loquitur)  creabiles,  labi- 
les,  reparabiles,  salvabiles,  hoc  est,  qui  creari  ac  praedestinari  poterant.  Et  hi  Sublapsarii 
(Infralapsarii)  vocantur. . .  .Discrepat  posterior  sententia  a  priore  in  eo  tantum,  quod  prior 
predestination em  praeordinet  lapsui,  posterior  earn  lapsui  subordinet.  Ilia  praeordinat  earn 
lapsui,  ne  Deum  insipientem  faciat:  haec  subordinat,  ne  Deum  injustum  faciat,  i.  e.  lapsus 
auctorem.  Comp.  Limlorch,  Theol.  Christ.,  iv.  2. 


§  249.  Freedom  and  Grace.  Predestination. 


275 


besides  the  perfection  of  his  nature,  there  was  also  something  in  his  nature 
averse  to  God,  or  a  fallen  nature.”] 

9  This  was  the  case,  e.  g .,  with  the  preachers  of  Delft.  Comp.  SchrocJch , 
Kirchengesch.  nach  der  Reformation,  v.  p.  224.  The  Synod  of  Dort  also 
was  satisfied  with  the  infrajapsarian  scheme ;  at  least  its  decrees  made  no 
express  mention  of  Supralapsarianism.  And  the  Form.  Cons.  Art.  5,  only 
says  that  Adam’s  fall  was  permitted. 

10  Concerning  the  necessary  connection  between  the  universality  of  grace 
and  conditional  election  on  the  one  hand,  and  between  particularism  (limited 
redemption)  and  unconditional  election  on  the  other,  see  Planck,  1.  c.  Thus 
we  find  in  the.  Formula  Concordise,  p.  618  :  Christus  vero  omnes  peccatores 
ad  se  vocat  et  promittit  illis  levationem,  et  serio  vult,  ut  omnes  homines  ad 
se  veniant  et  sibi  consuli  et  subveniri  sinant.  P.  619:  Quod  vero  scriptum 
est,  multos  quidem  vocatos,  paucos  vero  electos  esse,  non  ita  accipiendum 
est,  quasi  Deus  nolit,  ut  omnes  salventur,  sed  damnationis  impiorum  causa 
est,  quod  verbum  Dei  aut  prorsus  non  audiant,  sed  contumaciter  contemnant, 
aures  obdurent  et  cor  indurent  et  hoc  modo  Spiritui  Sancto  viam  ordinariam 
prsecludant,  ut  opus  suum  in  his  efficere  nequeat,  aut  certe  quod  verbum 
auditum  flocci  pendant  atque  abjiciant.  Quod  igitur  pereunt,  neque  Deus, 
neque  ipsius  electio,  sed  malitia  eorum  in  culpa  est. — The  same  doctrine  was 
taught  by  the  Remonstrants,  Art.  2  :  Jesum  Christum,  mundi  servatorem, 
pro  omnibus  et  singulis  mortuum  esse,  atque  ita  quidem,  ut  omnibus  per 
mortem  Christi  reconciliationem  et  peccatorum  remissionem  impetraverit,  ea 
tamen  conditione,  ut  nemo  ilia  remissione  peccatorum  re  ipsa  fruatur  praeter 
hominem  fidelem,  et  hoc  quoque  secundum  evangelium.  For  other  passages 
see  Winer,  p.  92. 

11  Thus  the  first  Confession  of  Basle  (comp,  note  Y)  does  not  exclude  the 
possibility  that  God  may  have  elected  all  men,  or  at  least  all  who  believe. 
The  authors  of  the  Confess.  Helvetica  also  were  cautious  in  their  expressions, 
c.  10  :  Deus  ab  seterno  prsedestinavit  vel  elegit  libere  et  mera  sua  gratia, 
nullo  hominis  respectu,  sanctos,  quos  vult  salvos  facere  in  Christo ....  Et 
quamvis  Deus  norit,  qui  sint  sui,  et  alicubi  mentio  fiat  paucitatis  electorum, 
bene  sperandum  est  tamen  de  omnibus,  neque  temere  reprobis  quisquam  est 
adnumerandus.  Comp,  too,  Conf.  Angl.  Art.  1Y.  Scot.  Art.  8.  In  the 
Catech.  Heidelberg,  too,  Qu.  20,  predestination  is  made  to  depend  on  faith.  The 
Calvinists  of  later  times  were  not  agreed  among  themselves  wdiether  Qu.  3Y 
implies  the  universality  of  the  merits  of  Christ  or  not ;  see  Heckhaus ,  1.  c. 
pp.  Y0,  Yl.  [The  3Yth  Question  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  is,  “What 
dost  thou  understand  by  the  words  He  suffered  ?v  Answer:  “That  he  all 
the  time  that  he  lived  on  earth,  but  especially  at  the  end  of  his  life,  sus¬ 
tained  in  body  and  soul  the  wrath  of  God  against  the  sins  of  all  mankind  ; 
that  so  by  his  passion  as  the  only  propitiatory  sacrifice,  he  might  redeem  our 
body  and  soul  from  everlasting  damnation,  and  obtain  for  us  the  favor  of 
God,  righteousness  and  eternal  life.”]  The  Confess.  Marchica  maintains 
naively,  Art.  14  (after  a  previous  affirmation),  “that  God  is  not  a  cause  of 
the  ruin  of  man,  that  he  takes  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked,  that 
he  neither  introduced  sin  into  the  world,  nor  impels  men  to  sin,  not  that  he 
will  not  have  all  men  saved,  for  the  very  contrary  is  asserted  in  Scripture  * 


276 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


but  that  tbe  origin  of  sin  and  perdition  is  to  be  found  in  Satan  and  the  wicked, 
whom  God,  on  account  of  their  unbelief  and  disobedience,  cast  into  condem¬ 
nation.  Item ,  we  ought  not  to  despair  of  the  salvation  of  any  one ,  so  long 
as  the  proper  means  for  obtaining  salvation  are  used ,  for  no  man  knows  when 
God  will  effectually  call  his  people,  nor  who  may  yet  believe  or  not,  because  God 
is  not  bound  to  any  time,  and  orders  all  things  according  to  his  good  plea¬ 
sure.  Therefore  his  Electoral  Grace  rejects  all  and  every  partly  blasphemous, 
partly  dangerous,  opinions  and  discourses,  such  as  that  we  must  ascend  into 
heaven  by  means  of  our  reason,  and  there  examine  a  special  register,  or  the 
secret  chancery  or  council-chamber  of  God,  as  to  the  question  who  is  or¬ 
dained  to  eternal  life  or  not,  though  God  has  sealed  up  the  book  of  life,  so 
that  no  creature  can  look  into  it.”  Nevertheless  the  same  Confession  expressly 
condemns  as  a  Pelagian  error  the  notion  that  God  elected  the  saints — 
propter  fidem  provisam. — The  doctrine  of  particular  redemption  is  set  forth 
not  only  in  the  Confess.  Gall.  Art.  12,  Belg.  Art.  6  (quoted  by  Winer,  p.  88), 
but  definitely  in  the  decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  (quoted  by  Winer ,  p.  89), 
and  the  Form.  Cons.  Art.  4 :  Deus  ante  jacta  mundi  fundamenta  in  Christo 
fecit  propositum  seculorum  (Eph.  iii.  11),  in  quo  ex  mero  voluntatis  suse 
beneplacito  sine  ulla  meriti,  operum  vel  fidei  prsevisione  ad  laudem  gloriosse 
gratise  suae  elegit  certum  ac  definitum  in  eadem  corruptionis  massa  et  com- 
muni  sanguine  jacentium  adeoque  peccato  corruptorum  numerum ,  in  tempore 
per  Christum  sponsorem  et  mediatorem  unicum  ad  salutem  perducendum,  etc. 

12  [Westminster  Confession  :  Chap.  iii. :  God  from  all  eternity  did  by  the 
most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his  own  will,  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain 
whatspever  comes  to  pass :  yet  so  as  thereby  neither  is  God  the  author  of 
sin  ;  nor  is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creature  ;  nor  is  the  liberty  or 
contingence  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather  established.  2.  Al¬ 
though  God  knows  whatsoever  may  or  can  come  to  pass,  upon  all  supposed 
conditions,  yet  hath  he  not  decreed  anything  because  he  foresaw  it  as  fu¬ 
ture,  or  that  which  would  come  to  pass,  upon  such  conditions.  See  also 
,  chap.  ix.  on  Free-Will.  Shorter  Catechism ,  Qu.  13  :  Our  first  parents  being 
left  to  the  freedom  of  their  own  will,  fell  from  the  estate  wherein  they  were 
created,  by  sinning  against  God. — On  Redemption,  see  chap.  vii.  3  :  Man  by 
his  fall  having  made  himself  incapable  of  life  by  that  covenant  [viz.,  of 
works],  the  Lord  was  pleased  to  make  a  second,  commonly  called  the  cove¬ 
nant  of  grace ;  wherein  he  freely  offereth  unto  sinners  life  and  salvation  by 
Jesus  Christ,  requiring  of  them  faith  in  him,  that  they  may  be  saved,  and 
promising  to  give  unto  all  those  that  are  ordained  unto  life,  his  Holy  Spirit, 
to  make  them  willing  and  able  to  believe.  Larger  Catechism ,  Qu.  31  :  The 
covenant  of  grace  was  made  with  Christ  as  the  second  Adam ,  and  in  him  with 
all  the  elect  as  his  seed.  The  Westminster  Confession  does  not  distinguish 
between  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  the  covenant  of  redemption  ;  nor  does 
it  use  the  word  atonement  in  distinction  from  redemption.  The  Anglican 
divines  generally  stood  aloof  from  the  definiteness  of  Calvinism  ;  see  Jeremy 
Taylor's  Deus  Justificatus,  or  a  Vindication  of  the  Glory  of  the  Divine  At¬ 
tributes,  in  the  question  of  Original  Sin,  against  the  Presbyterian  way  of 
understanding  it;  Works,  ix.  pp.  315-421.] 


§  250.  Controversies  Respecting  Predestination.  277 


"With  such  views  were  closely  connected  the  questions  about  the  doctrine  of  irresistible 
grace,  and  whether  grace  may  be  lost.  According  to  the  Reformed,  grace  works  irresistibly, 
nor  can  man  lose  it  when  once  in  his  possession.  Calvin  Instit.,  iii.  2,  12.  Canon.  Dord., 
v.  8.  The  Lutherans  take  the  opposite  view,  Confess.  Aug.,  12  (p.  13,  against  Anabaptists). 
Form.  Concord.,  p.  705  :  [Et  quidem  imprimis  falsa  et  Epicurea  ilia  opinio  graviter  redar- 
guenda  atque  rejicienda  est,  quod  quidam  fingunt,  fidem  et  acceptam  justitiam  atque  salutem 
non  posse  ullis  peccatis  aut  sceleribus  amitti,  sed  etiamsi  homo  absque  Dei  timore  et  pudore 
pravis  suis  concupiscentiis  indulgent  Spiritus  S.  repugnet,  et  atrocia  flagitia  contra  con- 
scientiam  suam  (et  quidem  malo  proposito)  designet,  nihilominus  tamen  fidem,  gratiam 
Dei,  justitiam  atque  salutem  retineri  posse.  Contra  hanc  pestilentissimam  persuasionem 
singular!  diligentia  hae  verissimae,  immotae,  divinae  comminationes,  poenae,  et  admonitiones 
christianis,  per  fidem  justificatis  saepe  repetendae  atque  inculcandae  sunt.]  Comp,  also 
the  Arminian  and  Sociniau  creeds  quoted  by  Winer ,  p.  112.  So,  too,  the  doctrine  of  the 
certainty  of  salvation  (certitudo  salutis)  made  a  part  of  the  theology  of  the  Reformed 
Church :  see  Calvin,  Institutes,  iii.,  c.  24,  §  4.  [But  equally  strong  statements  on  this 
point  were  made  by  Luther,  and  even  by  Melancthon  ;  the  assurance  of  faith  is  taught  in 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  the  Apology,  and  in  the  Saxon  and  Wirtemberg  Confes¬ 
sions.  Among  the  Reformed  Confessions,  it  is  not  found  in  the  two  of  Basle,  the  Gallican, 
the  Belgic,  the  second  Helvetic,  the  Scottish,  nor  in  the  canons  of  Dort.  The  Confession 
of  the  Westminster  Assembly  expressly  denies,  that  assurance  is  of  the  essence  of  saving 
faith.  Louis  le  Blanc,  Prof,  at  Sedan,  in  his  Theological  Theses,  1683,  maintains,  against 
Arnauld,  that  the  doctrine  was  not  generally  held  by  the  Reformed.  See  the  British  and 
Foreign  Evangelical  Review,  Oct.,  1856,  in  reply  to  Sir  William  Hamilton ,  who,  in  his 
Dissertations,  pp.  486-7  (Am.  ed.),  asserted,  that  on  this  point  Protestants  had  wholly 
abandoned  their  original  ground.]  As  regards  the  virtues  and  salvation  of  the  heathen, 
the  adherents  of  the  Augustinian  system  adopted  the  views  of  its  founder.  This  gave 
more  significance  to  Zwingle'a  different  view,  advanced  in  his  Christ.  Fidei  brevis  et  clara 
Expositio,  §  10. 


§  250. 

CONTROVERSIES  RESPECTING  PREDESTINATION  WITHIN  THE  DENOM¬ 
INATIONS  THEMSELVES. 

As  early  as  the  lifetime  of  Calvin  himself,  Sebastian  Castellio , 
and  Jerome  Bolsec ,  both  of  Geneva,  raised  their  voices  against  the 
Calvinistic  doctrine,  but  did  not  produce  any  impression.1  The  more6 
moderate  views  of  Arminius  and  his  followers,  always  had  secret 
adherents  in  the  Reformed  Church  itself.  Moses  Amyraldus,  a  dis¬ 
ciple  of  Cameron,  and  professor  of  theology  in  the  academy  of  Sau- 
mur,  openly  pronounced  in  favour  of  what  is  called  Universalismus 
hypotheticus,2  a  synthesis  of  universalism  and  particularism,  and 
was  followed  by  other  French  theologians.3  Claude  Pajon,  his  dis¬ 
ciple,  represented  the  gracious  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  so  in¬ 
timately  united  with  the  efficacy  of  the  word,  that  he  denied  an 
immediate  influence  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  heart  ;  but  yet  he  pro 
posed  to  have  no  controversy  with  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  pre¬ 
destination.4  Samuel  Huber ,  who  had  seceded  from  the  Reformed 

to  the  Lutheran  Church,  extended  the  universality  of  salvation 

'  *  , 

farther  than  the  Lutheran  theologians  allowed,  and  was  therefore 


278 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


persecuted  by  both  parties.5 — In  tbe  Roman  Catholic  Church,  the 
advocates  of  the  strict  system  of  Augustine  endeavoured,  on  differ¬ 
ent  occasions,  to  re-establish  its  former  authority.  The  controver¬ 
sies  carried  on  in  the  University  of  Louvain,6  and  the  attempt  of 
Lewis. Molina  to  reconcile  the  doctrine  of  predestination  with  that 
concerning  the  freedom  of  the  will,7  gave  rise  to  the  papal  Congrega¬ 
tions  de  Auxiliis  (gratige  divinse),  which,  however  did  not  lead  to 
any  important  result;8  until  at  last  Jansenism  established  a  permanent 
opposition  to  the  Pelagian  tendency  of  the  Romish  Church.  The 
Jansenists  also  adopted  the  views  of  their  master  concerning  pre¬ 
destination.9  [In  the  Church  of  England,  predestination  was  taught 
in  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  ;  but  was  gradually  supplanted  by  the  Ar- 
minian  system,  in  conjunction  with  Episcopal  and  Sacramental  ten¬ 
dencies.  The  Scotch  Presbyterians,  and  the  English  non-conformists 
held  to  the  Calvinistic  view,  substantially  as  stated  in  the  Confess¬ 
ion  of  Faith  and  the  Catechisms  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of 
Divines.]10 

1  Shortly  after  Castellio  had  removed  from  Geneva  to  Rasle  (1544),  he 
published  an  exposition  of  the  ninth  chapter  of  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Ro¬ 
mans,  in  which  he  violently  attacked  the  Calvinistic  doctrine.  In  an  anony¬ 
mous  pamphlet  published  at  Paris  under  the  title :  Auszuge  aus  den  latei- 
nischen  und  franzosischen  Schriften  Calvins,  the  doctrine  of  election  by  grace 
was  combated  “  with  the  weapons  of  the  keenest  satire  and  acutest  dialectics  in  a 
manner  worthy  of  Voltaire .”  Henry ,  Leben  Calvins,  i.  p.  389.  After  his  death 
were  published  :  Sebast.  Castellionis  Dialogi  IV.  de  predestinatione,  de  elec- 
tione,  de  libero  arbitrio,  de  fide.  Aresdorffii  [Basil.]  1578.  12mo.*  On 
the  controversial  writings  of  Bolsec ,  see  Bretschneider,  in  Reformatoren-Al- 
manach  1821,  p.  117.  Henry ,  iii.  48  ;  SchenJcel ,  ii.  174. 

1  Concerning  his  history  (he  died  1664),  see  Bayle ,  Dictionnaire,  sub  voce  : 
Amyraut ;  Jablonslci ,  Institute  Hist.  Christ,  recent,  p.  313.  SehrocJch, 
Kirchengesch.  nach  der  Reformation,  viii.  p.  660  ss.  See  also  above, 
^  225  a,  p.  181.  It  was  especially  against  the  assertions  of  Amyraut, 
as  well  as  of  Lewis  Cappellus  and  Joshua  de  la  Place ,  that  the  rigid- 
doctrine  of  the  Formula  Consensus  was  directed  (comp.  §  249,  note 
11.)  The  views  of  Amyraut  are  developed  in  his  Traite  de  la  Predes¬ 
tination.  Saumur,  1634.  12.  comp.  e.  g.  p.  89  :  Si  vous  consideres  le  soin 
que  Dieu  a  eu  de  procurer  le  salut  au  genre  humain  par  l’envoy  de  son 
fils  au  monde,  et  les  choses  qu’il  y  a  faites  et  souffertes  a  ceste  fin,  la  grace 
est  umverselle  et  presentee  a  tous  les  hommes.  Mais  si  vous  regardes  a  la 
condition  qu’il  y  a  necessairement  apposee,  de  croire  en  son  fils,  vous  trouve- 
res  qu’encore  que  ce  soin  de  donner  aux  hommes  un  Redempteur  procede 
d’une  merveilleuse  charite  envers  le  genre  humain,  neantmoins  ceste  charite 
ne  passe  pas  ceste  mesure,  de  donner  le  salut  aux  hommes,  pourveu  qu’ils  ne 
le  refusent  pas :  s’ils  le  refusent,  il  leur  en  oste  l’esperance,  et  eux  par  leur  in- 

*  With  a  Preface  by  Felix  Turpio  Urbevetanus  (Faustus  Socinus) :  see  Athen.  Raur., 
p.  360. 


§  250.  Controversies  Respecting  Predestination.  279 

credulite  aggravent  leur  condamnation.  Comp.  Specimen  Animadversionum 
in  Exercitationes  de  Gratia  Universali,  Salmur,  1784,  4. — Concerning  the 
further  progress  of  this  controversy  see  Walch ,  Biblioth.  Theol.  seh,  vol.  ii., 
pp.  1023  ss.  On  Amyraut  in  particular,  see  Schweizer,  Moses  Amyraldus, 
Versuch  einer  Synthese  des  TJniversalismus  und  des  Particularismus  (in  Zel¬ 
ler’s  Jahrb.,  1852 — chiefly  against  Eb^ard’s  representations):  “  Amyral- 
dism  has  been  designated ,  hypothetical  universalism.  Dut  this  is  liable  to 
be  misunderstood ,  and  to  favor  a  mistaken  representation  of  the  syste?n ,  as  if 
it  broke  through  the  bounds  of  Calvinistic  particularism ,  and  as  Ebrard 
thinks,  retained  this  characteristic  only  in  seeming  ;  while  the  fact  is,  that 
Amyraut  was  earnest  in  its  favor ,  and  even  made  it  more  sharp,  ivh.enever 
possible .”  Yet  still  there  is  in  Amyraldism  an  important  mitigation  of  the 
dogma  in  this  point  of  view,  that  “  he  appended  an  ideal  universalism  to  the 
particularising  world-plan .” 

3  Tessard,  Daille,  Elondel,  Claude,  Du  Dose,  Le  Faucheur,  Mestrezat, 
Tronchin.  [On  Daille  and  Blonde!,  see  above,  §  225,  a,  Notes  8  and  9. 
Comp.  A.  Vinet,  Histoire  de  la  Predication  parmi  les  Reformes  de  France 
au  I7e  siecle,  Paris,  1860.  He  reckons  Du  Bose  next  to  Claude  in  ability.] 
In  opposition  was  Du  Moulin  (Molingeus  of  Sedan),  and  especially  Friedr. 
Spanheim  in  his  Exercitationes  de  Gratia  Universal]*,  Lugd.  Batav.,  1646, 
to  which  Amyraut  replied  in  his  Exercitatio  de  Gratia  Universali,  Salm., 
1647.  See  Schweizer ,  p.  61.  [Comp.  §  225,  a  :  Vinet,  ubi  supra.  Du 
Moulin  published  10  decades  of  sermons,  and  60  controversial  treatises :  his 
Anatomie  of  Arminianism,  transl.  Lond.,  1635.] 

4  The  views  of  Pajon  were  especially  contested  from  the  Reformed  side, 
by  Claude  and  Jurieu :  Traite  de  la  Nature  et  de  la  Grace,  ou  de  Concours 
general  de  la  Providence,  et  du  Concours  particulier  de  Grace  eflicace,  con- 
tre  les  nouvelles  hypotheses  de  Mr.  P.  [ajon]  et  de  ses  disciples,  Utrecht, 
1687  :  also  by  Leydecker  and  Spanheim’.  from  the  Lutheran  side  by  Val. 
Ernest  Loscher  (Exercitatio  Theol.  de  Claudii  Pajonii  ejusque  Sectatoribus 
quos  Pajonistas  vocant  Doctrina  et  Fatis,  Lips.  1692).  On  the  relation 
between  his  individual  opinion  and  the  general  dogmatic  system  of  the  Re¬ 
formed  Church,  and  on  its  significance  in  the  Reformed  Theology,  see  Al. 
Schweizer ,  in  the  treatise  referred  to,  §  225,  Note  3  [in  Zeller’s  Theol.  Jahrb., 
1852,  1853,  and  in  Herzog's  Realencyclop.] 

6  He  was  a  native  of  Burgdorf,  in  the  Canton  Berne,  in  Switzerland,  but 
was  compelled  to  leave  his  country  on  account  of  his  opinions.  After  he  had 
joined  the  Lutheran  Church,  he  became  first  a  pastor  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Tubingen,  and  afterwards  a  professor  in  the  University  of  Wittenburg. 
His  assertion  that  God  from  eternity  elected  all  men  to  salvation  (without 
respect  to  their  future  faith)  gave  offense  to  the  Lutherans.  He  was  opposed 
by  Polycarp  Lyser  and  JEgidius  Hunnius  (1593),  whom  he  in  his  turn 
charged  with  Calvinism.  For  the  particulars  of  the  controversy,  and  the 
explanations  of  Huber,  see  Schrockh,  iv.  p.  661,  and  Andr.  Schmid  ii  Dissert, 
de  Sam.  Huberi  Vita,  Fatis  et  Doctrina,  Helmst.,  1708,  4.  Jul.  Niggers, 
Beitr&ge  zur  Lebensgesch  Sam.  Hubers,  in  Illgen’s  Zeitschrift,  1844.  Trechsel, 
in  the  Berner  Taschenbuch,  1844.  Schweizer,  Centraldogmen,  i.  501  sq. 

8  The  old  controversy  between  the  Thomists  and  Scotists  (Dominicans 


280 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


and  Franciscans)  was  revived  in  the  age  of  the  Reformation.  While  the 
Council  of  Trent  was  still  assembled,  a  controversy  broke  out  between 
Michael  Bajus  (de  Bay,  born  1513,  died  1589),  and  his  colleagues,  who  were 
followers  of  Scotus.  Pope  Pius  V.  issued  a  bull  (a.  d.  1567)  in  which  he 
condemned  76  propositions  of  Bajus  (several  of  which  were  literally  taken 
from  Augustine’s  writings) ;  but  this  was  done  only  in  a  certain  sense.  Gregory 
XIII.  confirmed  this  sentence  a.  d.  1579.  But  when  the  Jesuits,  Leonard  Less 
and  John  Hamel ,  propounded  the  Pelagian  System  too  boldly,  the  professors 
in  the  University  of  Louvain  raised  their  voices  against  34  propositions 
taken  from  their  lectures,  and  publicly  condemned  them.  For  further  de¬ 
tails  see  the  works  on  ecclesiastical  history.  Baji  Opp.  Col.,  1696,  4. 
[Comp.  Kuhn ,  Dogmatik,  i.  490  sq.  The  doctrine  of  Less  was  con¬ 
demned  by  the  faculty  of  Douay ,  1588,  Estius  being  the  leader,  while  May- 
ence ,  Treves  and  Lngolstadt  declared  for  the  Jesuits.  The  Spanish  Domini¬ 
can,  Bannez ,  was  the  ablest  Thomist  and  Augustinian  ;  against  him,  Pruden- 
tius  de  Monte-Mayor  defended  the  scientia  media,  1581.  The  same  view 
was  espoused  by  Petrus  de  Fonseca ,  in  1566,  and  defended  by  Suarez  in 
Coimbra,  Vasques  in  Compluta,  Gregory  of  Valemtia  in  lngolstadt. — as 
well  as  by  Molina,  see  next  note.] 

7  He  was  also  a  Jesuit,  born  1540,  and  died  1600  (as  a  professor  of  theol¬ 
ogy  in  the  University  of  Evora  in  Portugal).  He  wrote:  Liberi  arbitrii  cum 
gratise  donis,  divina  praescientia,  praedestinatione  et  reprobatione  concordia. 
He  endeavoured  to  bring  about  the  said  reconciliation  by  distinguishing 
between  praescientia  and  praedeterminatio ;  he  called  the  former  scientia 
media. 

8  They  were  drawn  up  a.  d.  1597  by  order  of  Pope  Clement  VIII,  and 
issued  1607  by  Pope  Paul  V.  The  Pope  imposed  (1611)  silence  upon  both 
parties. — Comp.  Aug .  Le  Blanc  (Serry),  Historia  Congreg.  de  Auxiliis  Gra- 
tiae,  Antw,  1700,  fol. 

9  See  the  general  history  of  doctrines.  Pope  Urban  VIII,  condemned  the 
“  Augustinus”  of  Jansen  in  the  bull  In  Eminenti.  (Bullar,  M.  Tom.  V.), 
and  Pope  Innocent  X,  condemned  (1653)  five  propositions  in  particular. 
For  further  details  see  the  works  on  ecclesiastical  history.  Concerning  the 
principles  of  the  Jansenists,  see  Reuchlin ,  Port-Royal.  (Compare  also 

§  228-) 

10  [See  above,  §  225,  5,  Notes  2,  6,  8, 15, 16,  etc.  The  1 7th  of  the  XXXIX 
articles  is  of  Predestination  and  Election  :  Predestination  to  life  is  the  ever¬ 
lasting  purpose  of  God,  whereby  (before  the  foundations  of  the  world  were 
laid)  he  hath  constantly  decreed  by  his  counsel  secret  to  us,  to  deliver  from 
curse  and  damnation  those  whom  he  hath  chosen  in  Christ  out  of  mankind, 
and  to  bring  them  by  Christ  to  everlasting  salvation,  as  vessels  made  to 
honor.  Wherefore  they  which  be  endued  with  so  excellent  a  benefit  of 
God  be  called  according  to  God’s  purpose  by  his  spirit  working  in  due  season  ; 
they  through  God’s  grace  obey  the  calling ;  they  be  justified  freely ;  they 
be  made  sons  of  God  by  adoption  ;  they  be  made  like  the  image  of  his  only 
begotten  son  Jesus  Christ;  they  walk  religiously  in  good  works;  and  at 
length,  by  God’s  mercy,  they  attain' to  everlasting  felicity. — Then  follow 
cautions  about  the  use  of  the  doctrine — “for  curious  and  carnal  persons, 


§  251.  Justification.  Faith. 


281 


lacking  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  to  have  continually  before  their  eyes  the  sen¬ 
tence  of  Predestination,  is  a  most  dangerous  downfall,”  etc.  The  Nine  Lam¬ 
beth  Articles  (see  §  225  5,  Note  8)  taught  reprobation.  On  the  controversy 
as  to  the  doctrinal  position  of  the  church  of  England,  see  the  works  of  Lau¬ 
rence ,  Tomline ,  Goode,  Scott,  etc.,  referred  to  in  note  2  of  §  225  b.  Abp. 
William  King  (of  Dublin),  Divine  Predestination  and  Foreknowledge,  Lond. 
1710;  Ed.  Copleston,  Bp.  of  LlandafF,  Enquiry  into  the  Doctrines  of  Neces¬ 
sity  and  Predestination,  Lond.,  1821.  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  chap¬ 
ter  iii,  3.  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some 
men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  fore¬ 
ordained  to  everlasting  death.  5.  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated 
unto  life,  God,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  according  to  his 
eternal  and  immutable  purpose,  and  the  secret  counsel  and  good  pleasure  of 
his  will,  hath  chosen  in  Christ  unto  everlasting  glory;  out  of  his  mere  free 
grace  and  love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,  or  perseverance 
in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature  as  conditions,  or  causes 
moving  him  thereunto ;  and  all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace.  6.  As 
God  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he  by  the  eternal  and  most 
free  purpose  of  his  will,  fore-ordained  all  the  means  thereunto,  etc.  7.  The 
rest  are  passed  by  and  ordained  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sin ,  to  the 
praise  of  his  glorious  justice.  8.  The  doctrine  of  this  high  mystery  is  to  be 
handled  with  special  prudence  and  care,  etc.] 

§  251. 

JUSTIFICATION  AND  SANCTIFICATION.  FAITH  AND  'WORKS. 

Molder,  Symbolik,  p.  134  ss.  Baur,  p.  215  ss. 

Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants  agreed  in  ascribing  to  God  the 
justification  of  the  sinner,  but  differed  in  this,  that  the  former  con¬ 
founded  the  act  of  justification  with  that  of  sanctification,  so  as  to 
represent  both  as  the  one  act  of  making  just,1  while  the  Protestants 
separated  the  one  from  the  other,  asserting  that  the  justification  of 
the  sinner  before  God  (which  is  described  as  a  forensic  act  on  the  part 
of  God),  is  antecedent  to  his  sanctification,  which  is  physical  (that 
is  affecting  the  nature)  and  therapeutical).2  Both  Roman  Catholics 
and  Protestants  ascribed  to  faith  a  justifying  power,  in  the  case  of 
the  sinner  :  but  there  was  this  great  difference  between  them,  that 
the  former  maintained  that,  in  addition  to  faith,  good  works  are  a 
necessary  condition  of  salvation,  and  ascribed  to  them  a  certain 
degree  of  meritoriousness,9  while  the  latter  adhered  rigidly  to  the 
proposition  u  sola  fides  justificat.”*  Some  opposing  sects,5  however, 
which  had  their  origin  in  Protestantism,  formed  here  again  an  ex¬ 
ception.  While  Arminians  and  Socinians  agreed  with  other  Protest¬ 
ants  in  restricting  justification  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  act  of 


282 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


granting  pardon,6  the  Mennonites  and  Quakers  regarded  it  as  a  thera¬ 
peutical  act.7  Respecting  the  relation  between  faith  and  works, 
the  Arminians  and  Socinians,  as  well  as  the  Mennonites,  adopted 
views  more  closely  allied  to  those  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  hut  with 
this  important  difference,8  that  they  denied  the  meritoriousness  of 
works,9  though  holding  them  to  he  necessary.  [Many  theologians  of 
the  Anglican  Church  occupied  an  intermediate  position.10] 

1  Cone.  Trid.,  Sess.  VI,  cap.  7 :  Justificatio  non  est  sola  peccatoram  re- 
missio,  sed  et  sanctificatio  et  renovatio  interioris  hominis  per  voluntariam 
susceptionem  gratiae  et  donorum,  nude  homo  ex  injusto  fit  jnstns  et  ex  ini- 
mico  amicus,  ut  sit  hseres  secundum  spem  vitae  aeternae,  etc.  Comp.  Can.  11, 

and  Bellarmine ,  De  Justif.,  ii.  2: _ Sicut  aer,  cum  illustratur  a  sole  per 

idem  lumen,  quod  recipit,  desinit  esse  tenebrosus  et  incipit  esse  lucidus,  sic 
etiam  homo  per  eandem  justitiam  sibi  a  sole  justitiae  donatam  atque  infusam 
desinit  esse  injustus,  delente  videlicet  lumine  gratise  tenebras  peccatorum, 
etc. 

8  Apol.  Augustanse  Conf.  p.  125 :  Justificare  hoc  loco  (Rom.  v.  1),  forensi 
consuetudine  significat  reum  absolvere  et  pronuntiare  j'ustum,  sed  propter 
alienam  justitiam,  videlicet  Christi,  quae  aliena  justitia  communicatur  nobis 
per  fidem.  Comp.  p.  73  ;  p.  109.  Form.  Cone.,  p.  785.  Helv.  II,  c.  15  : 
Justificare  significat  Apostolo  in  disputatione  de  justificatione  :  peccata  remit- 
tere,  a  culpa  et  poena  absolvere,  in  gratiam  recipere  et  justum  pronuntiare. — 
“  According  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine ,  Christ ,  by  the  act  of  justifica¬ 
tion ,  is  really  embodied  in  the  believer ,  so  that  the  latter  becomes  a  living 
reflection  of  the  prototype  ;  according  to  the  Protestant  doctrine,  he  casts 
only  his  shadow  upon  the  believer ,  which  so  shelters  him,  that  God  does  not 
see  his  sinfulness .”  Mohler,  Symbolik,  p.  134.  On  the  other  side  see  JBaur 
p.  229  ss.  and  the  passage  quoted  by  Mohler  p.  136,  from  Calvin's  Antidot. 
in  Cone.  Trid.,  p.  702  :  Neque  tamen  negandum  est,  quin  perpetuo  conjunctce 
sint  ac  cohcereant  duae  ista  res,  sanctificatio  et  justificatio.  Protestants  do 
not  deny  that  justification  and  sanctification  are  closely  connected,  but  they 
do  deny  that  they  are  one*  and  the  same  thing ;  when  the  Formula  Cone. 
(Solida  Declar.  iii.  p.  695)  says:  Totam  justitiam  nostram  extra  nos  quae- 
rendam,  it  explains  this  immediately  after  by  adding:  extra  omnium  homi* 
num  merita,  opera,  etc.  [In  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  the  whole 
antagonism  between  Romanism  and  Protestantism  is  most  clearly  seen. 
Protestants  make  the  subjective  and  individual  reception  of  salvation  to  be, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  inmost  experience  of  the  individual,  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  represents  it  as  mediated  as  slightly  as  possible  by  the  agency  of 
the  person  himself.  Catholicism  not  only  lets  the  individual  participate  in 
it,  but  also  introduces  a  whole  series  of  intermediate  acts  between  God  and 
man,  in  which  is  brought  out  the  externalizing  tendency  of  its  whole  system, 
j Baur,  p.  331.] 

8  Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  vi.  c.  6-c.  8  :  Per  fidem  ideo  justificari  dicimur,  quia 
fides  est  humanae  salutis  initium,  fundamentum  et  radix  omnis  justification^. 
— On  the  other  hand,  c.  9  :  Si  quis  dixerit,  sola  fide  impium  justificari,  ita 
ut  intelligat  nihil  aliud  requiri,  quod  ad  justifications  gratiam  consequendam 


§  251.  Justification.  Faith. 


283 


cooperetur . anathema  sit.  Comp.  c.  12.  This  is  allied  with  the 

moral'  and  external  (historical)  idea  of  faith.  Cat.  Rom.  I.  i.,  1  :  Nos  de  ea 
fide  loquimur,  cujus  vi  omnino  assentimur  iis,  quse  tradita  sunt  divinitus. 
Faith  taken  in  this  sense  (as  submission  to  the  authority  of  the  church)  may 
be  said  to  be  meritorious.  The  meritoriousness  of  works  consists  in  this, 
that  the  justitia  is  increased  by  the  performance  of  good  works.  Comp. 
Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  vi.  (quoted  by  Winer ,  p.  104) ;  Catech.  Rom.  ii.  5,  71. 
JBellarmine,  Justific.  v.  1,  iv.  7.  Nevertheless  (according  to  Bellarmine), 
the  merits  of  men  will  not  throw  the  merits  of  Christ  into  the  shade  ; 
they  are  rather  themselves  the  effect  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  serve 
to  manifest  his  glory  among  men.  Bellarmine ,  v.  5  (quoted  by  Winer , 
p.  105.) 

4  Confessio  Augustana,  Art.  4  :  Docent,  quod  homines  non  posgunt  justi- 
ficari  coram  Deo  propriis  viribus,  meritis  aut  operibus,  sed  gratis  justificentur 
propter  Christum  per  fidem,  cum  credunt  se  in  gratiam  recipi,  et  peccata 
remitti  propter  Christum,  qui  sua  morte  pro  nostris  peccatis  satisfecit.  Hanc 
fidem  imputat  Deus  pro  justitia  coram  ipso. — But  Protestants  did  not  under¬ 
stand  by  faith  mere  historical  faith  (as  did  Roman  Catholics),*  see  Art. 
20  (p.  18) :  Admonentur  etiam  homines,  quod  hie  nomen  fidei  non  significet 
tantum  historiae  notitiam,  qualis  est  in  impiis  et  diabolo,  sed  significet  fidem, 
quae  credit  non  tantum  historiam,  sed  etiam  effectum  histories,  videlicet  hunc 
articulum,  remissionem  peccatorum,  quod  videlicet  per  Christum  habeamus 
gratiam,  justitiam  et  remissionem  peccatorum.  Comp.  Apologia,  p.  68. — • 
Concerning  good  works,  and  the  relation  in  which  they  stand  to  faith, 
Luther ,  at  first  set  a  high  value  upon  the  genuine  works  of  mercy,  distin¬ 
guishing  these  from  the  dead  works  of  the  law  and  of  ceremonies ;  but  he 
also  denied  the  meritoriousness  of  the  best  works,  and  regarded  them  with 
suspicion,  whenever  they  did  not  proceed  from  faith  ;  comp.  Schenkel ,  ii. 
193,  sq. — The  Confess.  August,  says,  Art.  20,  p.  16  :  Falso  accusantur  nostri, 
quod  bona  opera  prohibeant. . .  .Docent  nostri,  quod  necesse  sit  bona  opera 
facere,  non  ut  confidamus  per  ea  gratiam  mereri,  sed  propter  voluntatem  Dei. 
— Apol.  p.  81  :  Nos  quoque  dicimus,  quod  delectio  fidem  sequi  debeat. 
Neque  tamen  ideo  sentiendum  est,  quod  fiducia  hujus  dilectionis  aut  propter 
hanc  dilectionem  accipiamus  remissionem  peccatorum  et  reconciliationem. 

*  The  contending  parties  were  well  acquainted  with  the  different  meanings  attached 
to  the  term  “  faith.”  See  Bellarmine ,  De  Justific.  §  4.  They  were  not  engaged  in  any 
mere  logomachy.  Only  this  is  to  be  lamented,  that  the  Protestants  (even  Luther)  did  not 
hold  fast  to  the  internal  and  dynamic  idea  of  faith,  but  frequently  confounded  it  (like  the 
Catholics)  with  the  fides  historica.  This  gave  rise  to  a  faith-righteousness,  worse  even 
than  righteousness  by  works,  since  it  cost  no  effort,  and  gave  occasion  to  pride  and 
harshness  towards  those  who  held  different  views;  see  Schenkel,  ii.  200  sq.  Zwingle,  on 
the  other  hand,  urged  the  moral  nature  of  faith ;  ibid.,  299.  Melancthon  and  Calvin  tried 
to  harmonize  the  dogmatical  and  ethical  elements  of  the  idea;  ibid.,  322  sq.  [The  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran  system  is  strikingly  seen  in  their  doctrine  res¬ 
pecting  faith.  In  the  Calvinistic  scheme,  faith  is  one  of  the  elements  in  the  series  of 
absolute  predestination;  the  Lutheran  system  tries  on  this  point  to  set  aside  the  absolute 
decree,  but  in  a  fluctuating  way,  making  faith  on  the  one  hand  to  be  a  gift  of  God,  and 
yet  on  the  other  hand,  not  daring  to  take  the  Pelagian  ground,  that  a  preevisa  fides  con¬ 
ditioned  the  election.  Baur,  p.  334.] 


284 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Ibid.  p.  85  :  Falso  calumniantur  nos  adversarii,  qnod  nostri  non  doceant 
bona  opera,  cum  ea  non  solum  requirant,  sed  etiam  ostendant,  quomodo  fieri 
possint,  etc.  Comp.  Winer ,  p.  99  and  105,  where  other  passages  are  quoted 
from  the  Lutheran  symbols. — The  creeds  of  the  Reformed  Church  express 
themselves  in  similar  terms.  Thus  the  Confession  of  Basle,  Art.  9,  Con¬ 
cerning  Faith  and  Good  Works  :  We  acknowledge  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  crucified  one ;  though  this  faith  continually  ex¬ 
ercises,  and  manifests  itself,  and  is  preserved,  by  works  of  love,  we  do 
not  ascribe  righteousness  and  satisfaction  for  our  sins  to  works  as  the  fruit 
of  faith,  but  solely  to  true  confidence  and  faith  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb 
of  God,  which  was  shed  for  the  remission  of  our  sins  ;  for  we  freely  confess 
that  all  things  are  given  to  us  in  Christ.  Therefore  believers  are  not  to 
perform  good  works  to  make  satisfaction  for  their  sins,  but  only  in  order  to 
manifest  their  gratitude  for  the  great  mercy  which  the  Lord  God  has  shown 
to  us  in  Christ. — Compare  also  the  arrangement  of  the  Catechism  of  Hei¬ 
delberg,  where  the  whole  system  of  ethics  is  included  in  the  article  concern¬ 
ing  Gratitude.  Conf.  Helv.  II.  c.  15  :  Docemus  cum  Apostola,  hominem 
peccatorem  justificari  sola  fide  in  Christum,  etc.  The  following  definition  is 
given  in  ch.  18  :  Fides  humananon  est  opinio  ac  humanapersuasio,  sed  firmis- 
sima  fiducia  et  evidens  ac  constans  animi  assensus,  denique  certissima  compre- 
hensio  veritatis  Dei ....  atque  adeo  Dei  ipsius,  summi  boni,  et  praecipue 
promissionis  divinae  et  Christi,  qui  omnium  promissionum  est  colophon. — 
Heidelberg  Catech.,  Qu.  21  :  What  is  true  faith  ?  Answ.  It  is  not  only  a  cer¬ 
tain  knowledge  whereby  I  hold  for  truth  all  that  God  has  revealed  to  us  in 
his  Word,  but  also  an  assured  confidence,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  works  by 
the  Gospel  in  my  heart,  that  not  only  to  others,  but  to  me  also,  remis¬ 
sion  of  sins,  everlasting  righteousness  and  salvation  are  freely  given  by  God, 
merely  of  grace,  only  for  the  sake  of  Christ’s  merits. 

6  For  example,  Thomas  Munzer ,  David  Joris ,  Seb.  Frank ,  Thamer , 
Schwenkfeld,  etc.  See  Schenkel,  ii.  251.  Hagen .,  ii.  374. 

6  Confess.  Remonstrant.  18,  3,  and  Apolog.  Conf.  Rem.  p.  112,  a.>  (quoted 
by  Winer,  p.  97)  :  Justificatio  est  actio  Dei,  quam  Deus  pure  pute  in  sua 
ipsius  mente  efficit,  quia  nihil  aliud  est,  quam  volitio  aut  decretum,  quo  pec- 
cata  remittere  et  justitiam  imputare  aliquando  vult  iis,  qui  credunt,  i.  e .,  quo 
vult  poenas  peccatis  eorum  promeritas  iis  non  infligere  eosque  tamquam  jus- 
tos  tractare  et  praemio  afficere. — The  Socinians  also  regarded  justification 
as  a  forensic  act.  Catech.  Racov.  Qu.  433  (ibid.) :  Justificatio  est,  cum  nos 
Deus  pro  justis  habet,  quod  ea  ratione  facit,  cum  nobis  et  peccata  remittit  et 
nos  vita  aeterna  donat.  Comp.  Socinus ,  de  Justif.  (Opp.  ii.  p.  603)  :  Duplici 
autem  ratione  amovetur  peccatum  :  vel  quia  non  imputatur  ac  perinde  habetur 
ac  si  nunquam  fuisset,  vel  quia  peccatum  ipsum  revera  aufertur,  nec  amplius 
peccatur ....  What  he  says  further  on :  Utraque  haec  amovendi  peccati  ratio 
in  justificatione  coram  Deo  nostra  con spicitur,  might  lead  us  to  think  that  he 
identified  sanctification  and  justification,  but  in  the  sequel  he  distinctly 
separates  them  :  Ht  autem  cavendum  est,  ne,  ut  hodie  plerique  faciunt,  vitae 
sanctitatem  atque  innocentiam  effectual  justificationis  nostrae  coram  Deo  esse 
dicamus,  sic  diligenter  cavere  debemus,  ne  ipsam  sanctitatem  atque  innocen¬ 
tiam  justificationem  nostram  coram  Deo  esse  credamus,  neve  illam  nostrae 


285 


§  251.  Justification.  Faith. 

coram  Deo  justification^  causam  efficientem  ant  impulsivam  esse  affirmemus, 
sed  tantummodo  causam,  sine  qua  earn  justificationem  non  contingere  de- 
crevit,  Deus.  The  difference  between  justificatio  and  obedientia  is  so  defined, 
that  by  the  former  we  are  to  understand  the  remissio  peccatorum,  and  by 
obedientia  a  mere  condition,  under  which  justification  occurs. 

T  Ries ,  Conf.  Art.  21  :  Per  vivam  fidem  acquirimus  veram  justitiam,  i.  e ., 
condonationem  seu  remissionem  omnium  tam  praeteritorum  quam  praesentium 
peccatorum,  ut  et  veram  justitiam,  quae  per  Jesum  cooperante  Spir.  Sancto 
abundanter  in  nos  effunditur  vel  infunditur,  adeo  ut  ex  malis. .  .  .fiamus  boni 
atque  ita  ex  injustis  revera  justi. — Barclay ,  Apol.  7,  3,  p.  128,  does  not 
comprise  under  justification  good  works  as  such,  not  even  when  viewed  as 
the  effects  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  us,  but  the  formatio  Christi  in  nobis ,  the 
new  birth,  which  at  the  same  time  comprehends  sanctification  ;  for  it  is 
realis  interna  animce  renovatio ;  for  those,  qui  Christum  in  ipsis  formatum 
habent,  integrum  eum  et  indivisum  possident. 

7  Limborch  Theol.  Christ,  vi.  4,  22  :. . .  .Sine  operibus  tides  mortua  et  ad 
justificationem  inefficax  est.  4,  31.  Comp.  Conf.  Remonstr.  xi.  1  ss.,  and 
Apol.  Confess,  p.  113  (quoted  by  Winer ,  p.  102).  According  to  Socinus 
(De  Justif.  in  the  Biblioth.  X^ratr.  f  ol.  Xom,  n.  p*  601,  ss.)  there  is  faith  m 
obedience  to  the  divine  commandments.  “  When  they  advance  anything 
else  concerning  justifying  faith ...  .they  borrow  it  from  Roman  Catholic 
theologians .”  [?]  Mohler ,  p.  634.  For  the  views  of  the  Mennonites  con¬ 
cerning  justification,  see  Ries,  Confess.  Art.  29:  Fides. ...  debet  comitata 
esse  amore  Dei  et  firma  confidentia  in  unum  Deum. 

8  Schyn ,  Plen.  Deduct,  p.  232  (quoted  by  Winer,  p.  107)  :  Non  cre- 
dimus  bona  opera  nos  salvare,  sed  agnoscimus  bona  opera  pro  debita 
obedientia  et  fructibus  fidei.  Socinus  also  asserted,  that  good  works, 
though  necessary,  are  not  meritorious  (non  sunt  meritoria) :  de  Justif.  p.  603. 

9  [The  article  on  Justification  in  the  Book  of  Homilies,  1547,  was  drawn 
up  by  Cranmer.  Bp.  George  Bull,  Harmonia  Apostolica,  two  dissertations  on 
the  doctrine  of  James  on  Justification,  and  his  agreement  with  Paul  (Works, 
vol.  iii.).  John  Bavenant,  Bp.  of  Salisbury,  Treatise  on  Justification,  1631, 
new  ed.,  1844,  defends  the  Reformed  doctrine.  Bp.  William  Forbes  (of 
Edinburgh,  b.  1585,  d.  1634),  Considerationes  Modestse  (against  Bellarmine 
on  Justification),  Lond.,  1658  (posthumous),  reprinted,  Lib.  Angl.  Cath. 
Theol.  i.  1850.  The  Article  XI.  (of  the  XXXIX.  Articles)  reads:  We 
are  accounted  righteous  before  God,  only  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ  by  Faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works  or  deservings, 
wherefore,  that  we  are  justified  by  Faith  only  is  a  most  wholesome  doctrine, 
and  very  full  of  comfort,  as  more  largely  is  expressed  in  the  Homily  of 
Justification.  Art.  XII.  represents  good  works  only  as  the  “  fruits  of 
faith.”  The  views  of  the  Platonizing  English  divines  are  set  forth  most 
clearly  in  J ohn  Smith’s  (of  Cambridge)  Select  Discourses ;  Of  Legal  and 
Evangelical  Righteousness,  the  7th  Discourse.] 


286 


m 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 

§  252. 

FLUCTUATION'S  WITHIJST  THE  DENOMINATIONS  THEMSELVES. 

Differences  of  opinion,  however,  obtained  among  Protestant  tneo- 
logians  themselves.  Thus,  Andrew  Osiander  represented  justifica¬ 
tion  and  sanctification  as  forming  only  one  act  ;l  and  as  regards  the 
relation  in  which  good  works  stand  to  faith,  the  views  of  Nicolas 
Amsdorf  were  diametrically  opposed  to  those  of  George  Major . 
The  latter  asserted  that  good  works  contributed  to  salvation,  while 
the  former  maintained,  that  they  are  productive  rather  of  evil  than 
of  good.2  Calixtus ,  somewhat  later,  emphasized  the  ethical  element, 
and  although  he  retained  the  formula,  sola  tides,  he  opposed  the 
tides  solitaria*  Both  the  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  mystics  at¬ 
tached  (like  the  Quakers)  great  importance  to  sanctification,  and 
were  strongly  opposed  to  that  theology  which  represents  justification 
as  an  external,  legal  transaction.4 

1  On  Osiandeds  doctrine  in  its  earliest  form  (after  1524)  see  Heberle  in 
the  Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1844.  It  is  further  developed  in  the  two  disputa¬ 
tions  which  he  held,  a.  d.  1549  and  1550,  in  his  treatise :  De  unico  Media- 
tore,  1551,  and  in  various  sermons.  He  maintained,  that  what  was  called 
justification  by  orthodox  theologians,  should  be  more  properly  designated 
redemption.  (Illustrated  by  the  case  of  a  Moor,  ransomed  from  slavery.) 
In  his  opinion,  the  signification  of  duccuovv  is  to  “  make  just it  is  only  by 
metonymy  that  it  can  mean  “  to  pronounce  a  person  just.”  Comp.  Planch , 
iv.  p.  249,  ss.  Tholuck's  Anzeiger,  1833,  No.  54,  55.  Schenhel ,  ii.  355. 
He  was  opposed  by  Francis  Staphylus ,  Morlin ,  and  others.  \jBaur  in 
Dogmengesch.  332  :  Justification  according  to  Osiander,  is  the  mystical 
union  of  man  with  Christ,  as  the  absolute  principle  of  righteousness. . .  .The 
believer  is  so  embodied  in  Christ,  that  in  this  living  concrete  unity,  he  is 
flesh  of  his  flesh,  and  bone  of  his  bone. . .  .The  Formula  Concordia  is  incor¬ 
rect  in  representing  his  doctrine,  as  excluding  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
from  the  work  of  redemption.] 

2  Compare  Amsdorf’s  treatise:  Dass  die  Propositio,  gude  Werke  sind 
schadlich  zur  Seligkeit,  eine  rechte  sei,  reprinted  in  S.  JBaumgarten ,  Ge- 
schichte  der  Religionsparteien,  p.  11 72-7 8.  Amsdorf  speaks,  in  the  first  in¬ 
stance,  of  those  works  by  which  men  hope  to  deserve  salvation  ;  but  even 
those  works  which  are  the  fruit  of  faith  are  imperfect,  on  account  of  sin, 
and  would  condemn  us  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  if  God  did  not 
condescend  to  accept  them  for  the  sake  of  faith  in  Christ.  In  his  opinion 
there  was  no  medium  between  that  which  is  necessary  to  salvation,  and  that 
which  does  harm.  “Though  the  dialectical  proof  of  this  inference,  or  con¬ 
sequence,  come  short  of  being  complete,  which,  however,  it  does  not,  it  can 
satisfactorily  be  established  on  theological  grounds.”  But  it  is  especially 
“  on  account  of  monks  and  hypocrites  that  it  is  necessary  to  adhere  to  this 
proposition,  though  it  may  give  offence  to  reason  and  in  philosophy.”  Ams- 


§  252.  Controversies  on  Justification. 


287 


dorf  admits  that  works  may  be  the  “  manifestations  and  evidences  of  faith ,” 
u  for  as  long*  as  faith  exists,  good  works  also  follow,  and  when  we  com¬ 
mit  sin,  we  do  not  lose  salvation,  because  we  have  previously  lost  it  by  un¬ 
belief?  Comp.  Planck ,  iv.  p.  69,  ss.  Calvin  is  also  decidedly  opposed 
to  Osiandrism,  which  he  calls  a  calumnia .  Comp.  Institutes  III.  c.  11,  §  10, 
sq .,  and  c.  13,  §  5  :  Quicunque  garriunt,  nos  fide  justificari,  quia  regeniti 
spiritualiter  vivendo  justi  sumus,  nunquam  gustarunt  gratise  dulcedinem,  ut 
Deum  sibi  propitium  fore  confiderent.  [See  above,  p.  149.  Pitschl ,  Die 
Rechtfertigungslehre  Osianders,  in  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theologia,  1857. 
Frank ,  De  Satisf.  Christi  ex  Lite  Osiandr.  Erlang.,  1858.  Gran,  De  Andr. 
Osiand.  Doctrina,  1860.  Baur,  Lehre  d.  Yersohnung,  1838,  p.  326,  s^.] 

3  See  Disputatio  Theologica  de  gratuita  Justificatione,  preside  J.  Calixto 

exponit  G.  Titius ,  Helmst.,  1650.  Against  this  the  Consensus  Repetitus, 
Punct.,  42-57  (in  Henke's  ed.,  p.  32,  sq.).  Gass ,  i.  74.  [ Gieseler,  Church 

Hist.,  New  York  ed.,  iv.  §  52.] 

4  Schwenkfeld  had  already  maintained  that  the  tendency  of  Luther’s  doc¬ 
trine  was  to  seduce  common  people  into  errors  and  carnal  liberty.  He  ad¬ 
mitted  that  the  doctrine  (concerning  faith  and  good  works)  was  true  in  a 
certain  sense,  and  under  certain  limitations,  but  he  thought  that  it  might 
easily  be  perverted  so  as  to  lead  to  belief  in  the  mere  letter  of  Scripture, 
and  to  moral  indifference.  Comp.  Planck,  v.  1,  p.  83,  ss.  Schenkel ,  u.  s. 
§  251,  note.  Faith,  according  to  Schwenkfeld,  is  essentially  dynamic,  “a 
gracious  gift  of  the  divine  essence,  a  drop  from  the  heavenly  fountain,  a 
glittering  of  the  eternal  sun,  a  spark  of  the  eternal  fire,  which  is  God,  and  in 
short,  a  communion  and  participation  of  the  divine  nature  and  essence  ( vrcoo - 
raotq ,  Hebr.  xi.  1)  ;  see  his  work,  Yom  Worte  Gottes,  110,  b.  and  Erbkam , 
Prot.  Secten,  431,  sq. — [The  fundamental  significance,  which  Osiander 
ascribed  to  the  essential  righteousness  of  Christ,  in  the  matter  of  justifica¬ 
tion,  is  attributed  by  Schwenkfeld  to  the  glorified  flesh  of  Christ.  Baur,  p. 
333.]  J.  JBohme  (von  der  Menschwerdung  Christi,  vol.  ii.  c.  7,  §  15,  quoted 
by  Umbreit ,  p.  51)  says:  “  The  hypocritical  Babylon  now  teaches:  Our 
works  deserve  nothing,  Christ  has  redeemed  us  from  death  and  hell,  we  must 
only  believe  it,  in  order  to  be  saved.  Dost  thou  not  know,  Babylon,  that  the 
servant  who,  knowing  his  master’s  will,  does  not  fulfill  it,  will  be  beaten  with 
many  stripes  ?  Knowledge  without  action  is  like  a  fire,  which  glimmers,  but 
cannot  burn,  because  the  fuel  is  moist.  If  thou  wilt  have  thy  fire  of  faith 
burn,  thou  must  blow  upon  it,  and  free  it  from  the  moisture  of  the  devil  and 
of  hell ;  thou  must  enter  into  the  life  of  Christ,  and  do  his  commandments,” 
etc. — Though  Arnd  adhered  more  firmly  than  Bohme  to  the  fundamental 
principles  of  Lutheranism,  he  always  urged  the  necessity  of  that  love  which 
proceeds  from  faith  (see  the  passages  quoted  from  his  Wahres  Christenthum, 
in  Hagenbactis  Yorlesungen,  vol.  iii.  p.  377-79.)  Poiret  called  that  faith 
which  manifests  itself  especially  as  an  uncharitable  spirit  of  opposition, 
military  faith.  (Ibid.  iv.  p.  327.) 


288 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


§  253. 

THE  ECONOMY  OF  REDEMPTION. 

[Schroder,  Die  Ordo  Salutis,  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  185t.] 

The  fundamental  principles  laid  down  in  the  symbolical  books, 
were  more  fully  developed  by  theologians,  especially  by  those  of  the 
Protestant  Church,  so  as  to  form  a  definite  economy  of  redemption. 
After  God  has  called  the  sinner  (vocatio),  and  man  heard  that  call 
(auditio),  operations  of  the  Divine  Spirit  (operationes  Spiritus), 
follow  each  other  in  definite  succession— viz.  1.  Illuminatio  ;  2.  Con- 
versio  (pcenitentia)  ;  3.  Sanctificatio  (renovatio)  ;  4.  Perseverantia ; 
5.  Unio  mystica  cum  Deo.  Theologians,  however,  did  not  quite 
agree  as  to  the  precise  order  of  these  operations.1  The  mystics,  and 
the  so-called  pietists,  neglected  all  those  scholastic  definitions,  and 
had  a  system  and  terminology  of  their  own.2 

1  Compare  the  works  of  the  orthodox  Protestant  theologians,  cited  in  Be 
Wette,  Dogmatik,  p.  151,  ss.  Hase ,  Hutterus  Redivivus,  p.  287,  ss.,  where 
passages  are  also  quoted  from  the  writings  of  other  divines ;  Gass ,  i.  362, 
sq .,  and  the  works  of  Hulsemann ,  and  Musaus ,  to  which  he  refers. 

2  The  theory  of  the  economy  of  salvation  was  established  on  account  of, 
and  in  opposition  to,  the  pietists.  See  Be  Wette ,  p.  151.  For  their  views 
concerning  the  so-called  Theologia  Irregenitorum,  and  the  economy  of  sal¬ 
vation,  see  Planck ,  Geschichte  der  protestantischen  Theologie,  p.  223  ss. 
The  pietists  asserted  that  the  regeneration  of  man  commences  with  a  change 
in  his  will ;  their  opponents  maintained  that  the  illumination  of  the  under¬ 
standing  was  the  first  step.  The  conscious  experience  of  the  unio  mystica 
raised  some  mystics  to  the  height  of  ecstasy ;  with  others  it  subsided  into 
quietism.  See  Molina's  Guida  Spirituale  (extracts  in  Scharling ,  ubi  supra, 
p.  55  sq),  and  the  appendix,  p.  236.  [This  Spiritual  Guide  was  published  in 
Spain,  1675  ;  an  English  translation  appeared,  1688.]  As  no  reference  was 
made  to  the  unio  mystica  in  the  symbolical  books,  theologians  entertained 
different  views. — On  the  controversy  between  the  theologians  of  Leipsic  and- 
Wittenberg  on  the  one  hand,  and  those  of  Tubingen  and  Helmstadt  on  the 
other  (which  had  its  origin  in  the  assertion  of  Justus  Feuerborn ,  that 
there  is  an  approximatio  of  the  divine  substance  to  the  human),  comp.  Wa.lch, 
Religionsstrieitigkeiten  der  evangelisch — luther.  Kirche,  iii.  p.  130  ss.  [In 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  justification  is  made  the  fruit  of  conversion,  and 
precedes  sanctification.  Calvin ,  Inst.  Ill,  cap.  5,  puts  faith  first,  and  then 
Poenitentia,  with  its  two  divisions  of  mortificatio  and  vivificatio.  Ger¬ 
hard's  order  is,  Poenitentia,  Justificatio,  Bona  Opera.  Uollaz  is  most  minute  : 
Vocatio,  Illuminatio,  Conversio,  Regeneratio,  Justificatio,  Unio  mystica,  Re¬ 
novatio,  Conservatio,  Gratia  glorificans,  etc.  Comp.  Schroder ,  ubi  supra. 
On  the  different  positions  assigned  in  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  systems 
to  decrees,  imputation,  satisfaction,  faith,  etc.,  see  Schneckenburger ,  in  Theol. 
Jahrb.,  1844.] 


I 


THIRD  DIVISION. 


THE  DOCTRINES  CONCERNING  THE  CHURCH  AND  ITS  MEANS 

OF  GRACE,  CONCERNING  SAINTS,  IMAGES,  THE  SACRIFICE 
OF  THE  MASS,  AND  PURGATORY. 

(THE  PRACTICAL  CONSEQUENCES.) 

§  254. 

INTRODUCTION. 

With  the  differences  about  the  formal,1  as  well  as  the  material 
principle,2 3 * * * *  which  constitute  Roman  Catholicism  on  the  one  hand, 
and  Protestantism  on  the  other,  are  intimately  connected  their  res¬ 
pective  views  concerning  the  church  and  its  means  of  grace,  concern¬ 
ing  the  forms  of  worship,  especially  the  mass  and  the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass,  and  concerning  the  connection  subsisting  between  the  latter, 
and  the  state  of  the  dead  (purgatory)  ;  or,  more  properly  speaking, 
these  views  are  the  necessary  consequences  of  their  principles.  But 
Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics,  as  distinguished  from  the  sects, 
were  agreed  in  preserving  the  historical  and  positive  basis  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  though  ,they  differed  as  to  extent  and  manner,  and  in  retain¬ 
ing  external  and  legal  forms.  On  the  other  hand,  the  sects,  rejecting 
more  or  less  arbitrarily  the  historical  development  of  Christianity 
and  its  higher  influence  in  shaping  the  life  of  society,  exposed  them¬ 
selves  to  the  disintegrating  power  of  separatism,  now  on  the  side  of 
barren  reflection,  and  again  in  the  way  of  fantastical  mysticism.8 

1  Wherever  the  so-called  abuses  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  are  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  symbolical  writings  of  the  Protestants,  they  are  rejected 
chiefly  because  they  are  either  not  founded  upon  Scripture,  or  are  directly 

opposed  to  it. 

3  The  fundamental  contrast  between  faith  and  works  (the  internal  and 

the  external),  manifests  itself  also  in  the  doctrines  in  question.  Where 

Protestants  suppose  an  invisible  order  of  things,  Roman  Catholics  rely  upon 

the  external  form,  which  strikes  the  senses ;  where  the  former  seek  means  of 

grace,  the  latter  find  opera  operato,  etc. 

3  Dissolution  into  fragments  of  churches,  and  disintegration  into  atoms, 


290 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


are  the  common  fate  of  all  sects.  Another  thing  common  to  them  all  is  the 
disregard  they  manifest  to  whatever  is  symbolical  in  public  worship.  They 
either  despise  it  altogether  as  only  captivating  the  senses,  or  they  regard  it 
it  as  a  vain  ceremony. — While  Protestantism  was  in  some  respects  liable  to 
foster  such  a  development,  it  also  included  powerful  principles  of  an  opposite 
tendency,  which  gave  rise  to  the  organization  of  forms  of  worship  and  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  polity.  The  Calvinists  rather  endeavoured  to  build  anew  from  the 
foundation,  while  the  Lutherans  were  more  attached  to  historical  prece¬ 
dents. 


'  §  255'. 

THE  CHURCH  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  POWER. 

Kostlin,  Luther’s  Lehre  von  der  Kirche,  Stuttg.,  1853.  Hansen ,  Die  lutherische  und  die 
reformirte  Kirchenlehre  von  der  Kirche,  G-olka,  1854.  Munchmeier  [die  sichtbare 
und  unsichtbare  Kirche,  Grotting.,  1854;  comp.  Bitschl  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1859. 
Kostlin,  Wesen  der  Kirche,  Deutsche  Zeitschrift,  1855  ;  Die  Katholische  Auffassung, 
ibid.  On  Melancthon's  views  see,  Reuter’s  Repertorium,  Sept.  1856.  William 
Palmer ,  A  Treatise  on  the  Church  of  Christ,  3d  ed.,  2  vols.,  1842,  repr.  New  York. 
Abp.  Whately,  The  Kingdom  of  Christ,  1841,  repr.  New  York.  Edward  Arthur 
Litten,  The  Church  of  Christ  in  its  Idea,  etc.,  repr.  New  York,  1856.  Charles  Hodge, 
The  Church,  etc.,  in  Princeton  Review,  1853,  4,  6,  reprinted  in  his  Essays  and  Re¬ 
views,  1857.] 

The  old  antagonism  between  the  external  and  internal  idea  of  the 
church  was  more  fully  developed  by  the  conflicts  between*Romanism 
and  Protestantism.  According  to  Roman  Catholics,  the  church  is 
a  visible  society  of  all  baptised  persons,  who  adopt  a  certain  exter¬ 
nal  creed,  have  the  same  sacraments,  and  acknowledge  the  Pope  as 
their  common  head.1  Protestants  assert  that  the  church  consists  in 
the  invisible  fellowship  of  all  those  who  are  united  by  the  bonds  of 
true  faith,  which  ideal  union  is  but  imperfectly  represented  by  the 
visible  church,  in  which  the  true  gospel  is  taught,  and  the  sacraments 
are  rightly  administered.2  In  the  view  of  the  former,  individuals 
come  to  Christ  through  the  church ;  in  the  view  of  the  latter,  they 
come  to  the  church  through  Christ.3  With  this  difference  in  funda¬ 
mental  principles  is  connected  the  different  view  entertained  by 
Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics  concerning  ecclesiastical  power 
and  the  hierarchy.  Protestants  not  only  reject  the  papacy,  and  all 
the  gradation  of  ecclesiastical  dignities  in  the  Roman  Catholic  sense, 
but,  proceeding  from  the  idea  of  the  spiritual  priesthood  of  all 
Christians,  regard  the  clergy  not,  like  their  opponents,  as  an  order 
of  men  specially  distinct  from  the  laity,  but  as  the  body  of  the  teach¬ 
ers  and  servants  of  the  Church,  who  being  divinely  called  and  prop¬ 
erly  appointed,  possess  certain  ecclesiastical  rights,  and  have  to 
perform  certain  duties  which  they  derive  partly  from  divine,  partly 


§  255.  The  Church  and  Ecclesiastical  Power.  291 


from  human  law.4  In  their  opposition  to  the  hierarchy,  the  Anabap¬ 
tists  and  Quakers  went  still  further,  rejecting  not  only  the  order  of 
priests,  but  also  that  of  instructors ,  and  made  the  right  of  teaching 
in  the  church  to  depend  on  an  internal  call  alone.5  [The  Church  of 
England  occupied  an  intermediate  position  between  the  Roman 
Catholics  and  the  other  reformed  churches,  retaining  the  Episcopate 
and  the  theory  of  apostolical  succession,6  though  not  at  first  denying 
the  validity  of  the  orders  of  other  churches,7  and  vigorously  oppo¬ 
sing  the  pretensions  of  the  papacy.8  The  Presbyterian  polity  was 
shaped  most  completely  in  Scotland.9  Independency  (Congregation¬ 
alism)  was  planted  in  New  England,  and  had  a  temporary  triumph 
in  England  under  Cromwell.10] 

1  After  the  example  of  Augustine  (in  his  controversy  with  the  Donatists), 
the  Roman  Catholics  maintained  that  the  church  militant  on  earth*  is  com¬ 
posed  of  the  good  and  the  wicked.  See  Confess.  August.  Confut.,  c.  7,  and 
Cat.  Rom.,  i.  10,  V.  It  is  in  Bellarmine's  treatise,  De  Ecclesia  Milit.,  in  par¬ 
ticular  that  this  doctrine  is  very  clearly  developed,  c.  2  :  Nostra  sententia  est, 
ecclesiam,  unam.  tantum  esse,  non  duas,  et  illam  unam  et  veram  esse  coetum 
hominum  ejusdem  christianae  fidei  professione  et  eorundam  sacramentorum 
communione  colligatum,  sub  regimine  legitimorum  pastorum  ac  praecipue 
unius  Christi  in  terris  vicarii,  romani  pontificis.  Ex  qua  definitione  facile 
colligi  potest,  qui  homines  ad  ecclesiam  pertineant,  qui  vero  ad  earn  non  per- 
tineant.  Tres  enim  sunt  partes  hujus  definitionis :  Professio  verae  fidei, 
sacramentorum  communio,  et  subjectio  ad  legitimum  pastorem,  romanum 
pontificem.  Ratione  primae  partis  excluduntur  omnes  infideles,  tarn  qui  nun- 
quam  fuerunt  in  ecclesia,  ut  Judaei,  Turcae,  Pagani,  tam  qui  fuerunt  et  reces- 
serunt,  et  haeretici  et  apostatae.  Ratione  secundae  excluduntur  catechumeni 
et  excommunicati,  quoniam  illi  non  sunt  admissi  ad  sacramentorum  commu- 
.nionem,  isti  sunt  dimissi.  Ratione  tertiae  excluduntur  schismatici,  qui 
habent  fidem  et  sacramenta,  sed  non  subduntur  legitimo  pastori,  et  ideo  foris 
profitentur  fidem  et  sacramenta  percipiunt.  Includuntur  autem  omnes  alii, 
etiamsi  reprobi,  scelesti  et  impii  sunt.  Atque  hoc  interest  inter  sententiam 
nostram  et  alias  omnes,  quod  omnes  alias  requirunt  internas  virtutes  ad  con- 
stituendum  aliquem  in  ecclesia  et  propterfea  ecclesiam  veram  invisibilem 
faciunt ;  nos  autem  et  credimus  in  ecclesia  inveniri  omnes  virtutes,  fidem, 
spem,  carit.atem  et  cet.eras;  tamen  ut  aliquis  aliquo  modo  dici  possit  pars  verae 
ecclesiae,  de  qua  scripturae  loquuntur,  non  putamus  requiri  ullam  internam 
virtutem,  sed  tantum  externam  professionem  fidei  et  sacramentorum  commu- 
nionem,  quae  sensu  ipso  percipitur.  Ecclesia  enim  est  coetus  hominum  ita 


*  The  distinction  which  Roman  Catholics  make  between  ecclesia  militans  and  trium- 
phans ,  has  reference  to  this  world,  and  to  that  which  is  to  come,  while  the  distinction  made 
by  Protestants  between  the  visible  and  invisible  church,  has  reference  to  this  world  only. 
Comp.  Schweizer ,  ii.  663,  [in  his  Glaubenslehre  der  reform  Kirche :  Ecclesia  est  partim 
militans  partim  triumphans  in  coelis ;  ilia  quae  adhuc  in  terris  colligitur,  est  visibilis,  vel 
invisibilis :  Aretiusi\ 


292 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


visibilis  et  palpabilis,  ut  est  coetus  populi  romani  vel  regnum  Gallic  aut  res- 
publica  Yenetorum. 

2  On  the  gradual  development  of  tbe  idea  of  tbe  church  in  Luther’s  sys¬ 
tem,  see  SchenJcely  Wesen  der  Protest.,  iii.  1  sq.,  and  Kostlin ,  ubi  supra ;  on 
Zwingle’s  views,  see  SchenJcely  p.  61  sq.  On  Calvin ,  ibid.,  p.  99  sq.  (compar¬ 
ing  the  fourth  Book  of  his  Institutes).  Conf.  Aug.,  Art.  7 :  Est  ecclesia 
congregatio  sanctorum,  in  qua  evangelium  recte  docetur  et  recte  adminis- 
trantur  sacramenta.  Apol.  Confess.  Aug.,  p.  144  ss. :  Et  catholicam  eccle- 
siam  dicit  [articulus  ille  in  Symbolo],  ne  intelligamus,  ecclesiam  esse  politiam 
externam  certarum  gentium,  sed  magis  homines  sparsos  per  totum  orbem, 
qui  de  evangelio  consentiunt,  et  habent  eundem  Christum,  eundem  Spiritum 
Sanctum,  et  eadem  sacramenta,  sive  habeant  easdem  traditiones  humanas, 
sive  dissimiles. — p.  148:  Neque  vero  somniamus  nos  Platonicam  civitatem, 
ut  qiiidem  impie  cavillantur,  sed  dicimus  existere  hauc  ecclesiam,  videlicet 
vere  credentes  ac  justos  sparsos  per  totum  orbem.  First  Confess,  of  Basle, 
Art.  5  :  “  We  acknowledge  a  holy  Christian  Church,  i.  e.  the  communion  of 
saints,  the  spiritual  assembly  of  believers,  which  is  holy,  and  an  offspring  of 
Christ,  of  which  all  those  are  citizens  who  truly  confess  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  and 
who  give  evidence  of  their  faith  by  works  of  love.”  Conf.  Helv.  II,  c.  17  ; 
Oportet  semper  fuisse,  esse  et  futuram  esse  ecclesiam,  i.  e.  e  mundo 
evocatum  vel  collectum  coetum  fidelium,  sanctorum  inquam  omnium  commu- 
nionem,  eorum  videlicet,  qui  Deum  verum  in  Christo  servatore  per  Yerbum 
et  Spiritum  Sanctum  vere  cognoscunt  et  rite  colunt,  denique  omnibus  bonis 
per  Christum  gratuito  oblatis  fide  participant. . .  .Illam  docemus  veram  esse 
ecclesiam,  in  qua  signa  vel  notse  inveniuntur  ecclesise  verse,  imprimis  vero 
verbi  divini  legitima  vel  sincera  prsedicatio.  Conf.  Gall.,  Art.  27.  Belg.  27  : 
Credimus  unicam  ecclesiam  catholicam  seu  universalem,  quse  est  congregatio 
sancta  seu  coetus  omnium  vere  fidelium  christianorum,  qui  totam  suam  salu- 
tem  in  uno  Jesu  Christo  exspectant,  sanguine  ipsius  abluti  et  per  spiritum 
ejus  sanctificati  atque  obsignati.  Sancta  hcec  ecclesia  certo  in  loco  non  est 
sita  vel  limitatay  aut  ad  certas  singular esque  personas  alligatay  sed  per  totum 
mundum  sparsa  atque  diffusa. — Comp.  Angl.,  19,  Scot.  16.  [Westminster 
Confession,  chap,  xxv  :  The  Catholic  or  universal  church,  which  is  invisible-, 
consists  of  the  whole  number  of  the  elect,  that  have  been,  are,  or  shall  be 
gathered  into  one,  under  Christ  the  head  thereof ;  is  the  spouse,  the  body, 
the  fullness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all.  The  visible  church,  which  is  also 
catholic  or  universal  under  the  gospel  (not  confined  to  one  nation  as  before 
under  the  law),  consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world,  that  profess  the 
true  religion,  together  with  their  children  ;  and  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary 
possibility  of  salvation.]  The  doctrine  concerning  the  Church  is  most  ably 
and  acutely  developed  by  Calvin  Instit.,  iv.  1  ss.  Comp.  Henry ,  vol.  ii.  p.  90 
ss.  The  Arminians  ( Limborch  Theol.,  vii.  1,  6)  and  the  Mennonites  adopted 
substantially  the  same  principles  as  the  Calvinists.  RieSy  Conf.  Art.  24. 
Concerning  the  views  of  the  Quakers  and  Socinians,  see  Winery  p.  168. — 
The  latter,  in  particular,  attached  little  importance  to  the  doctrine  concern¬ 
ing  the  church.  See  Socinusy  Opp.  T.  i.  3  :  Quod  si  dicas,  ad  salutem 


§  255.  The  Church  and  Ecclesiastical  Power.  293 


neeessarium  esse,  ut  quis  sit  in  vera  Christi  ecclesia,  et  propterea  necessarium 
simnl  esse,  ut  veram  Christi  ecclesiam  inquirat  et  agnoscat,  negabo  consecu- 
tionem  istarn. . . .  Nam  simulatque  quis  Christi  salutarera  doctrinam  habet, 
is  jam  vel  re  ipsa  in  vera  Christi  ecclesia  est,  vel  ut  sit  non  habet  necesse  in- 
quirere,  quaenam  sit  vera  Christi  ecclesia,  id  enim. . .  .jam  novit.  From  this 
he  infers  :  Qusestionem  de  ecclesia,  quaenam,  sive  apud  quos  sit,  quae  hodie 
tantopere  agitatur,  vel  inutilem  propemodum  esse,  vel  certe  non  esse  necessa- 
riam. — The  principle  extra  ecclesiam  nulla  salus  was  also  retained  by  the 
Protestant  Church,  though  in  a  somewhat  different  sense.  Comp.  Winer ,  p. 
169.  It  also  concedes  that  the  true  church  can  not  err  (as  to  the  faith) ;  it  is 
a  columna  veritatis;  see  Augsb.  Confes.  p.  148.  The  later  Lutheran  divines  lay 
claim  to  this  predicate  exclusively  for  their  (the  Lutheran)  church,  excluding 
not  only  the  Roman  Catholics,  but  also  Calvinists,  from  the  church ;  see  Con¬ 
sensus  Repetitus  Fidei,  punct.  59  (in  Henlce,  p.  44)  :  Rejicimus  eos,  qui  do¬ 
cent  ad  ecclesiam  christianam  pertinere  non  tantum  Lutneranos  et  Grsecos 
[sic],  sed  Pontificios  etiam  et  Calvinianos. 

3  Thus  Calvin ,  1.  c.  laid  some  stress  on  the  phraseology  of  the  Apostles’ 
Creed,  where  it  is  not  said,  Credo  in  ecclesiam,  like,  credo  in  Deum,  in 
Christum ;  but  simply,  Credo  ecclesiam.  “  Protestantism  demands  obedi¬ 
ence  under  Christ ,  and  connects  therewith  the  participation  of  the  individual 
in  the  church ;  Roman  Catholicism  on  the  other  hand  demands  obedience 
under  the  hierarchy ,  and  makes  dependent  thereon  the  participation  of  the  in¬ 
dividual  in  the  blessings  received  from  Christ  ;  Schenk  el,  iii.  26. 

4  On  the  connection  between  the  Roman  Catholic  notion  of  the  priestly 
office  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  see  Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  23,  c.  1.  On 
the  other  side,  Apol.  Confess.  Aug.,  p.  201 ;  Sacerdotum  intelligunt  adversarii 
non  de  ministerio  verbi  et  sacramentorum  aliis  porrigendorum,  sed  intelli¬ 
gunt  de  sacrificio,  quasi  oporteat  esse  in  Novo  Testamento  sacerdotium  simile 
Levitico,  quod  pro  populo  sacrificet  et  mereatur  aliis  remissioLem  peccato- 
rum.  Nos  docemus,  etc. . .  .Ideo  sacerdotes  vocantur,  non  ad  ulla  sacrificia 
velut  in  lege  pro  populo  facienda  ut  per  ea  mereantur  populo  remissionem 
peccatorum,  sed  vocantur  ad  docendum  evangelium  et  sacramenta  porrigenda 
populo.  Luther  expressed  himself  on  this  subject  as  follows :  “  Every 
Christian  man  is  a  priest,  and  every  Christian  woman  a  priestess,  whether 
they  be  young  or  old,  master  or  servant,  mistress  or  maid-servant,  scholar 
or  illiterate.”  Opp.  Altenb.,  ed.  i.,  fol.  522,  (in  Spener ,  geistliches  Priester- 
thung,  Frankf.  1677,  p.  76  sq.):  “All  Christians  are,  properly  speaking,  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  clerical  order,  and  there  is  no  difference  between  them,  except 
that  they  hold  different  offices.  (1  Cor.  xii.)  By  baptism  we  are  all  made 
priests,  (1  Pet.  ii.)  We  do  not  want  to  be  made ,  but  born ,  popes,  and  to  have 
our  papacy  by  inheritance,  through  our  birth  from  our  fathers  and  mothers ; 
for  our  father  is  the  true  pope  and  high  priest  (Ps.  cx.)  Hence  we  take 
persons  from  such  born  popes,  and  call  them  to  such  offices.  Papal  or  Epis¬ 
copal  ordination  can  only  make  hypocrites  and  oil-idolaters”  [Germ.  Oelgot- 
zen.]. . .  .Not  only  those  “who  are  anointed  and  have  received  the  tonsure” 
are  priests,  “  but  every  one  who  is  baptised  may  consider  himself  an  ordained 
priest,  bishop,  and  pope,  though  it  does  not  belong  to  every  one  to  exercise 
the  duties  belonging  to  such  offices.  For,  though  we  be  all  priests,  none 


294 


Fourth  Period  Thi  Age  of  Symbolism. 


must  take  upon  himself,  without  being  commissioned  and  approved  of  by 
ourselves,  to  do  that  to  which  we  all  possess  equal  rights. . .  .The  office  of  a 
Christian  minister  ought  not  to  be  different  from  that  of  a  bailiff.  While 
he  is  in  office  he  has  the  precedence  before  others ;  but  when  he  is  removed 
from  office,  be  is  a  peasant  or  citizen  like  everybody  else  (he  has  not  a  char¬ 
acter  indelcbilis).  Nor  are  women  excluded  from  the  general  priesthood  of 
Christians,  but  they  must  not  teach  publicly  (1  Cor.  xiv.).  But  all  derive 
their  priestly  office  from  Christ  the  sole  high  priest.”  See  also  his  Appeal 
to  the  Nobles  of  the  German  Nation  (in  Walch ,  x.  p.  302  sq.)  :  ‘‘Hence  the 
bishop’s  consecration  means  only  this,  that  he  takes  one  out  of  the  crowd 
instead  of  the  whole  body,  who  all  have  like  authority,  and  commands  him 
to  exercise  this  authority  for  the  others.  Just  as  if  ten  brothers,  the  children 
of  the  king,  should  elect  one  to  govern  for  them  ;  they  were  all  kings  and  of 
equal  rights,  and  yet  one  of  them  is  appointed  to  rule.  To  set  it  in  a  clear¬ 
er  light,  if  a  company  of  pious  Christian  laymen  were  captured  and  sent  to  a 
desert  place,  and  had  not  among  them  an  ordained  priest,  and  were  all  agreed 
in  the  matter,  and  elected  one,  and  told  him  to  baptize,  administer  the  mass, 
absolve,  and  preach,  such  an  one  would  be  as  true  a  priest,  as  if  all  the  bishops 
and  popes  had  ordained  him.”  (Comp,  ibid.,  x.  p.  1858). ...  “  When  on  the 
other  hand,  the  popish  parsons,  to  prove  their  priesthood,  show  their  pates 
and  grease,,  and  long  coats  to  boot,  we  are  very  willing  to  let  them  boast  of 
their  dirty  trumpery,  for  we  know,  that  it  is  very  easy  to  fleece  and  grease  a 
pig  or  sow,  and  put  a  long  coat  on  the  animal.”  Comp.  Luther ,  De  Capt. 
Babyl.  and  his  treatise:  Von  der  Winkelmesse  und  der  Pfaffenweihe  (Wit- 
tenb.  edit.,  vii.  p.  433  ss.)  Comp.  SchenJcel ,  as  above,  p.  16  sq.,  Kostlin ,  59. 
The  universal  priesthood  was  also  insisted  on  by  Ziuingle  and  Calvin .  The 
former,  in  the  concluding  address  to  the  first  Zurich  disputation  (1523,  see 
his  Works,  i.,199),  calls  the  Catholic  church  “the  wife  of  Christ;”  “since 
it  follows  that  all  who  love  the  head  are  members  and  children  of  God” 
(Thesis  8).  Accordingly  (Thesis  62),  there  are  no  other  priests,  “  than 
those  who  preach  God’s  word.”  Comp.  Calvin’s  Instit.  II.  15,  6  ;  IV.  18, 
13,  16,  17. — The  distinction  made  by  Protestants  between  sacerdotium  and 
ministerium  is  very  ably  set  forth  in  the  Confess.  Helv.  II.  Art.  18  :  Deus 
ad  colligendam  vel  constituendam  sibi  ecclesiam,  eandemque  gubernandam 
et  conservandam,  semper  usus  est  ministris,  iisque  utitur  adhuc,  et  utetur 
porro,  quoad  ecclesia  in  terris  fuerit.  Ergo  ministrorum  origo,  institutio  et 
functio  vetustissima  et  ipsius  Dei,  non  nova  aut  hominum  est  ordinatio. 
Posset  sane  Deus  sua  potentia  immediate  sibi  adjungere  ex  hominibus  eccle¬ 
siam,  sed  maluit  agere  cum  hominibus  per  ministerium  hominum.  Proinde 
spectandi  sunt  ministri,  non  ut  ministri  duntaxat  per  se,  sed  sicut  ministri 
Dei,  utpote  per  quos  Deus  salutem  hominum  operatur. . .  .Rursus  tamen  et 
hoc  cavendum  est,  ne  ministris  et  ministerio  nimium  tribuamus. .  .  .  Diver- 
sissima  inter  se  sunt  sacerdotium  et  ministerium.  Illud  enim  commune 
est  christianis  omnibus,  ut  modo  diximus,  hoc  non  item.  Nec  e  medio 
sustulimus  ecclesiae  ministerium,  quando  repudiavimus  ex  ecclesia  Christi 
sacerdotium  papisticum.  Equidem  in  novo  testamento  Christi  non  est  am- 
plius  tale  sacerdotium,  quale  fuit  in  populo  vetere,  quod  unctionem  habuit 
externam,  vestes  sacras,  etc.... quae  typi  fuerunt  Christi,  qui  ilia  omnia 


§  2 55.  The  Church  and  Ecclesiastical  Power,  295 

veniens  et  adimplens  abrogavit. — In  addition  to  piety,  it  is  especially  theo¬ 
logical  knowledge  by  which  the  teachers  of  the  church  must  be  distinguished 
from  the  laity :  Eligantur  autem  non  quilibet,  sed  homines  idonei,  eruditione 
justa  et  sacra,  eloquentia  pia  prudentiaque  simplici,  denique  moderatione  et 
honestate  vitae  insignes ....  Damnamus  ministros  ineptos,  et  non  instructos 
donis  pastori  necessariis. — As  regards  the  right  to  officiate  as  a  minister,  it  is 
necessary,  also,  in  the  Protestant  Church,  to  be  rite  vocatus*  :  Nemo  autem 
honorem  ministerii  ecclesiastici  usurpare  sibi,  i.  e .,  ad  se  largitionibus,  aut 
ullis  artibus,  aut  arbitrio  proprio,  rapere  debet.  Yocentur  et  eligantur  elec- 
tione  ecclesiastica  et  legitima  ministri  ecclesiae,  i.  e .,  eligantur  religiose  ab 
ecclesia  vel  ad  hoc  deputatis  ab  ecclesia,  ordine  justo  et  absque  turba,  sedi- 
tionibus  et  contentione.  For  further  passages  quoted  from  other  symbols, 
see  Winer ,  p.  I75f. 

6  On  the  views  of  the  Anabaptists,  see  Schenkel ,  iii.  88,  sq.  Munzer's 
positions,  as  given  by  Stohel  (Leben  Mtinzers),  p.  19,  sq. :  Quis  non  septies 
spiritu  sancto  profusus  fuerit,  Deum  audire  et  intelligere  minime  potest. . . . 
Vera  ecclesia  est,  quae  audit  vocem  sponsi. — The  Quaker  principles  are  given 
in  Barclay ,  Theol.  Christ.  Apol.  Thes.  10  :  Sicut  dono  et  gratia  seu  lumine 
Dei  omnis  vera  cognitio  in  rebus  spiritualibus  recipitur  et  revelatur,  ita  et 
illo,  prout  manifestatur  et  in  intima  cordis  receptum  est,  per  ejus  vim  et 
potentiam  unusquisque  verus  evangelii  minister  constituitur,  prseparatur  et 
suppeditatur  in  opere  ministerii,  et  hoc  movente,  ducente  et  trahente  oportet 
evangelistam,  pastorem  christianum,  duci  et  mandari  in  labore  et  ministerio 
suo  evangelico,  et  quoad  loca,  ubi,  et  quoad  personas,  quibus,  et  quoad  tem- 
pora,  quando  ministraturus  est.  Porro,  qui  hujus  habent  auctoritatem,  pos- 
sunt  et  debent  evangelium  annunciare,  licet  humanis  mandatis  carentes  et 
humanse  literaturae  ignari.  E  contra  vero,  qui  hujus  divini  doni  auctoritate 
carent,  qnamquam  eruditione  et  scientia  praediti  et  ecclesiarum  mandatis  et 
hominum  auctoritate  ut  plurimum  pollentes,  impostores  tantum  et  frauda- 
tores,  non  veri  evangelii  ministri  seu  praedicatores  habendi  sunt.  Praeterea, 
qui  sanctum  et  immaculatum  donum  acceperunt,  sicut  gratis  accepere,  ita  et 
gratis  distributuri  sunt  absque  mercede  vel  pacto  stipendio,  absit,  ut  eo  utan- 
tur  sicut  arte  ad  lucrandam  pecuniam,  etc.  (Women  are  also  permitted  to 
teach.  Barclay ,  Comment.  27.) 

6  [The  Anglican  literature  has  been  very  fruitful  on  the  subject  of  the 
Church  and  its  polity,  in  opposition  to  Rome,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  Pres¬ 
byterian  and  other  Protestant  churches  on  the  other  hand.  The  question  of 
the  relation  of  the  church  to  the  state  was  also  largely  discussed — as,  e.  g .,  on 
the  question  of  passive  obedience,  and  in  the  controversies  with  the  non- 
jurors. — In  the  XXXIX.  Articles,  Art.  XIX.  of  the  Church ,  declares  :  The 
visible  church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  the  which  the 
pure  word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  be  duly  administered,  ac¬ 
cording  to  Christ’s  ordinance,  in  all  those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requi- 

*  On  the  different  views  of  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  (Ordinatio  vaga)  respecting  ordi¬ 
nation,  see  the  Canon  law. 

f  Socinians,  in  the  doctrine  about  the  church,  follow  in  substance  the  statements  of  the 
Protestant  symbols,  but  view  the  matter,  when  possible,  in  a  still  more  external  way, 
ice  Feck's  Socinianismus,  and  note  2  above. 


296 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


site  to  the  same.  Art.  XX.  declares  that  the  church  hath  power  to  decree 
rites  and  ceremonies,  and  authority  in  controversies  of  faith — yet  that  it  is 
not  lawful  for  it  to  ordain  anything  contrary  to  God’s  word.  Art.  XXXVI. 
approves  the  Book  of  Consecration  of  Archbishops  and  Bishops,  as  set  forth 
in  the  time  of  Edward  VI. — Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity  (see  §  225,  5., 
note  11,)  advocates  the  Anglican  system  with  the  greatest  ability.  See  also, 
Abp.  Potter ,  Disc,  of  Church  Government,  1724  (1838).  Parker's  Gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  Church,  1683.  Jeremy  Taylor ,  Episcopacy  Asserted.  John 
Pogers  (1679-172  9),  on  the  Visible  and  Invisible  Church,  2d  ed.,  1719. 
Hilson ,  Perpetual  Gov.  of  Church,  1593-1842.  William  Nichols,  1664— 
1712,  Defence  of  Doctrine  and  Discipline  of  Church  of  England,  3d  ed., 
1730.  Bp.  Robert  Sanderson ,  (1587-1663),  Divine  Bight  of  Episcopate, 
and,  The  Church,  ed.  W.  Goode. — Richard  Field  (1561-1616),  Of  the 
Church,  1606,  fifth  book,  1610,  2d  ed.,  1628,  1635  ,  or  Eccles.  Hist.  Soc.  4, 
Camb.,  1847-52.  Thos.  Jackson ,  Of  the  Church,  etc.,  in  Works,  Vol.  xii. 
— Thos.  Brett ,  (non-juror,  1667-1743),  Account  of  Church  Government,  1710; 
Divine  Right  of  Episc.,  2d  ed.,  1728. — George  Hickes  (non-juror,  b.  1642,  d. 
1 7 1 5),  Treatises  on  Christian  Priesthood  and  Episcopal  Order,  4th  ed.,  Oxf., 
1847,  3  vols.  (Libr.  Angl.  Cath.  Theol.) ;  he  also  edited  Bibliotheca  Script. 
Eccles.  Anodic. — a  Collection  of  Tracts  on  the  Church.  Richard  Cosin 

O 

(civilian),  Ecclesiae  Anglic.  Politeia,  1684.  Herbert  Thorndike ,  d?.  1672,  On 
the  Government  of  the  Churches,  1541,  1841,  in  Lib.  Angl.  Cath.  Theol., 
1844,  vol.  1.  Bp.  John  Overall  (1559-1619),  Convocation  Book,  Gov.  of 
Church,  1690,  Lib.  Angl.  Cath.  Theol.,  1844.  Peter  Heylin ,  Ecclesia  Vin- 
dicata  in  Hist.  Tracts,  1681.  Bp.  Thos.  Morton  (1564-1659), -Episcopacy 
of  Church  of  England  Justified,  1670.  William  Saywell ,  The  Ref.  of  Ch. 
of  Eng.  Justified,  1688.  Bp.  Stilling  fleet,  Irenicum,  a  Weapon-salve  for  the 
Church’s  Wounds,  or  the  Divine  Right  of  particular  Forms  of  Church  Gov¬ 
ernment,  1661  (Works  vol.  2).  Bp.  Sami.  Parker  (Oxford,  b.  1640,  d. 
1687)  Discourse  of  Eccles.  Politie,  1670  ;  Defence  of  same,  1671  ;  Account 
of  Government  of  Church  for  first  hundred  years,  1683.  Slater's  Original 
Draft  of  the  Primitive  Church,  1 7 1 7  ;  repr.,  1830  (reply  to  King). — General 
Works  on  Church  Polity:  Gibson's  Codex  Juris  Ecclesiast.  2  fob,  1764; 
Sir  Henry  Spelman  (1562-1641),  Concilia,  Decreta,  Constitutiones,  etc.,  2 
fob,  1639-64.  David  Wilkins  (d.  1745)  Concilia;  accedunt  Constitu¬ 
tiones,  etc.,  4  fob,  1737.  Jos.  JBingham ,  Antiquities  of  Christ.  Church,  new 
ed.,  9  vols.,  1840.  On  the  English  Convocation ,  see  Apb.  William  Wake , 
State  of  the  Church  and  Clergy  of  England,  occasioned  by  a  book  entitled 
The  Rights  and  Powers  of  an  English  Convocation,  fob,  Lond.,  1704.  Hody , 
Hist,  of  Convocation.  G.  Trevor,  Hist,  of  Convocation,  1853;  see  Christ. 
Rembr.,  1853,  and  Oct.,  1854.] 

T  [On  the  question  of  the  position  of  the  Church  of  England  in  respect 
to  the  recognition  of  the  validity  of  the  orders  of  other  churches,  see  Wm. 
Goode,  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  etc.,  1851  ; 
republished  in  Xew  York,  1853  ;  abridged,  1860  ;  replies  by  the  bishop  of 
Exeter,  and  Archd.  Churton.  See  also  Bp.  John  Cosin,  on  the  Validity  of 
«  Orders,  etc.,  ed.  Goode  ;  and  the  works  on  the  Church  by  Abp.  What  el  y , 
and  Edward  Arthur  Litton. — Tracts  for  the  Times,  1833-4,  No.  74,  Catena 


§  255.  The  Church  and  Ecclesiastical  Power.  297 


Patrum,  Testimony  of  Writers  in  the  English  Church  to  the  Apostolical 
Succession. — Bp.  Burnet,  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Articles,  says,  that  their 
authors,  and  successors  for  half  an  age  after,  did  “  acknowledge  the  foreign 
churches ....  to  be  true  churches  as  to  all  essentials  of  the  church,”  al¬ 
though  somewhat  “  irregularly  formed.”  Even  Hooker  concedes  (Eccl.  vol. 
vii.  14)  “that  there  may  be  sometimes  very  just  and  sufficient  reason  to  allow 
ordination  made  without  a  bishop.”  Clergymen  from  the  continent,  who 
received  benefices  in  England,  were  only  required  to  subscribe  the  Articles, 
not  to  be  reordained.  Abp.  Usher  said  :  “  in  places  where  bishops  cannot 
be  had,  the  ordination  by  presbyters  standeth  valid.”  Abp.  Wake:  Eccle- 
sias  Reformatas  etsi  in  aliquibus  a  nostra  Anglicana  dissentientes  libenter 
amplector. .  .  .Interim  absit  ut  ego  tarn  ferrei  pectoris  sim,  ut  ob  ejusmodi 
defectum  (sic  inihi  absque  omni  invidia  appellare  liceat)  aliquas  earum  a 
communione  nostra  abscindendas  credam  ;  aut,  cum  quibusdam  furiosis  inter 
nos  scriptoribus,  eas  nulla  vera  ac  valida  sacramenta  habere,  adeoque  vix 
Christianos  esse  pronuntiem.  Letter,  1719,  4th  App.  to  Mosheim’s  Eccl. 
Hist.,  transl.  by  Maclaine.] 

8  [On  the  Controversy  with  Rome :  Cardinal  Bellarmine1  s  Notes  of  the 
Church  refuted  by  Tenison,  Kidder,  Patrick,  Williams,  etc. ;  repr.  1840. 
BrogdeFs  Catholic  Safeguard  (a  collection  of  treatises)  3  vols.,  Loud.,  1846. 
Gibson  ( Edmund ,  1667-1748),  Preservation  against  Popery  (also  a  collec¬ 
tion  of  tracts),  18  vols.,  Lond.,  1848-9.  Jewel1  s  Apology.  Bp.  Thos . 
Harlow ,  (1607-91),  Popery,  1679;  Brutuin  Fulmen,  1681.  Isaac  Harrow 
(1630-1677),  Treatise  of  Pope’s  Supremacy.  Jeremy  Taylor ,  Dissuasive 
from  Popery.  Crakanthorp ,  Defens.  Eccles.  Angl.,  new  ed.,  1847.  Chil~ 
liny  worth1 s  Religion  of  Protestants  (see  §  225,  b.)  Andrew  Willett  (1562— 
1621),  Synopsis  Papismii,  5th  ed.,  1634,  repr.,  10  vols.,  1852.  Roger  Twys- 
den ,  Hist.  Yind.  of  Ch.  of  Eng.,  1657,  3d  ed.  James ,  Bellum  Papale,  1600. 
1847.  Bp.  Henry  Fern  (1602-1661),  Ref.  Church  of  England,  against  Ant. 
Champney,  of  the  Sorbonne,  1653.  Henry  Hammond  (1605-1660),  Works 
4  fob,  1774  ;  on  Schism;  a  Parsenesis,  in  defence  against  Romanists  (vol.  2). 
Daniel  Hrevint  (d.  1695),  Missale  Romanum,  etc.  Geo.  Hickes ,  Controver¬ 
sial  Disc.,  and  Corruptions  of  Church  of  Rome,  1705,  3d  ed.,  1727  ;  he  also 
edited  Bp.  Joseph  Hall  (1574-1656),  in  Works,  vol.  8,  on  the  Peace  of 
Rome,  etc.  Geo.  Reynolds ,  Hist.  Essay  on  Gov.  of  Church  of  England, 
1743.  Andrew  Sail ,  d.  1682,  True  Cath.  and  Apostolic  Faith,  new  ed.  by 
Allport,  1840.  Francis  Mason  (1566-1621),  Vindicise  Eccles.  Anglicanse, 
against  Bellarmine,  etc.,  fob,  1638  ;  transl.,  1728.  Bp.  John  Buckeridge  (of 
Ely,  d.  1631),  De  Potestate  Papae  in  rebus  temporalibus,  Lond.,  1614.  Abp. 
John  Sharp  (1644-1714),  Works,  vol.  7  (1754),  on  Roman  Cath.  contro¬ 
versy.  Abp.  Wm.  Laud  (1573-1645),  Relation  of  Conference  with  Mr. 
Fisher,  1624  ;  in  Works,  vol.  2,  Oxf.,  1849  ;  Rome’s  Masterpiece  (in  Remains,) 
by  Wharton ,  fob  1700,  vol.  i.  p.  567,  sq.  Francis  White ,  d.  1638,  Reply  to 
Jesuit  Fisher,  etc.,  1624.  Nathl.  Spinckes  (non-juror,  b.  1653  or  1654,  d. 
1727),  Essay  on  Cath.  Communion  in  Union  with  Rome,  1705.  Bp.  Ed . 
Stilling  fleet,  Rational  Account  of  the  Grounds  of  the  Protestant  Religion, 
2d  ed.,  1681  (Works,  vol.  4).  William  Sherlock ,  Preservative  against 
Popery;  Summary  of  Controversies;  on  Bellarmine’s  Notes.  Dean  Hum- 


298 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


ghrey  Prideaux ,  Ecclesiastical  Tracts;  Validity  of  Orders  of  Ch.  of  England; 
against  Papists,  1688.  Thos.  Brown ,  Story  of  the  Ordination  at  Nag’s 
Head,  1731.  Peter  Francis  Coarayer  (b.  1681,  d.  1776),  Hiss,  on  Validity 
of  English  Ordinations,  and  Defence  of  the  same,  new  ed.,  Oxf.,  1844.  William 
Cave  (1637-1713),  Hiss,  on  Gov.  of  Ancient  Church,  1683.  Abp.  Wm. 
Wake,  Continuation  of  the  Controversy  between  Church  of  England  and 
Rome ;  being  a  full  account  of  the  books  published  on  both  sides,  Lond., 
1688.] 

9  [Presbyterian  Church  Government.  Ratio  ac  Forma  publice  orandi 
Deum,  etc.,  Genev.,  1556,  (drawn  up  by  the  English  exiles  in  the  Marian 
Persecution.)  George  Gillespie ,  Aaron’s  Rod  blossoming,  or  the  Divine 
Ordinance  of  Church  Government.  Publ.  by  authority,  Lond.,  1646. 
Cartwright ,  vs.  abp.  Whitgift.  Smectymnus ,  An  Answer  to  Bp.  Hall’s  Divine4 
Right  of  Episcopacy  (the  authors,  whose  initial  letters  make  up  the  name 
of  the  book,  were  Steph.  Marshall,  Edm.  Calamy,  Thos.  Young,  Matth.  New¬ 
comen,  and  Wm.  Spurstowe).  John  Milton  wrote  an  Apology  for  Smec¬ 
tymnus  ;  also  a  work  on  Prelatical  Episcopacy  against  Wall  and  IJsher ; 
Reason  of  Church  Gov.  against  Prelacy.  Edm.  Calamy ,  Vind.  of  Presb. 
Government,  1654.  London  Ministers,  Jus  Divinum  Regiminis  Eccles., 
1646.  Divine  Right  of  Church  Gov.,  new  ed.,  1799  ;  repr.  New  York, 
1844.  Ay  ton's  Original  Constitution  of  the  Church.  Peter  King  (Lord 
Chancellor)  b.  1669,  d.  1733,  Inquiry  into  the  Constitution  of  the  Prim. 
Ch.  (anon.),  1812,  often  reprinted,  is  favorable  to  the  Presbyterian  view. — • 
Among  the  opponents  of  Presbyterians  in  the  Church  of  England,  were 
Henry  Hammond ,  Vind.  Episc.  Dissert,  quatuor  (against  Blondel)  ;  H. 
Hodwell ,  Separation  of  Churches,  1679;  Bp.  Sanderson ,  Puritan  Prejudices 
against  Clergy  of  Church  of  England;  F.  Brokesby  (1657-1715)  Hist,  of 
Gov.  of  Prim.  Ch.  (against  Blondel) ;  Bp.  Henry  Fern ,  Episc.  and  Presb., 
1647 ;  The  Case  as  it  Stands,  1655  ;  Bp.  John  Sage  (of  Scotland),  b.  1652, 
d.  1711,  Charter  of  Presb.,  and  Principles  of  Cyprianic  Age;  Peter  Heylin , 
Aerius  Redivivus,  Hist.  Presb.,  2d  ed.,  1672  ;  Bp.  Wm.  Lloyd,  Hist.  Account 
of  Church  Gov.  (against  Blondel),  2d  ed.,  1700;  Bp.  Ed.  Stilling  fleet, 
Unreasonableness  of  Separation,  2d  ed.,  1681  (Works,  vol.  2)  ;  Wm.  Sher¬ 
lock ,  Defence  of  the  same,  1675  ;  Disc,  of  Church  Unity,  1681-2.] 

10  [ John  Cotton  (see  §  225,  b.,  note  44),  Doctrine  of  Church  to  which  are 
committed  the  Keys,  etc.,  Lond.,  2d  ed.,  1643,  1644  ;  Vindiciae  Clavium ; 
Way  of  the  Churches,  against  Baylie  and  Rutherford,  1648.  Cotton’s  work 
made  a  convert  of  John  Owen  ;  he  had  previously  brought  Thos.  Goodwin 
and  Philip  Nye  over  to  his  views.  Robinson’s  church,  and  the  Plymouth 
church  were  formed  on  this  basis.  See  Owen's  Nature  and  Gov.  of  the 
Gospel  Church,  and  other  treatises  in  his  works,  vols.  xv.  xvi.  Thos. 
Goodwin  (b.  1600,  d.  1679),  Works,  5  fob,  Lond.,  1681 ;  Constitution  and 
Gov.  of  the  Churches  of  Christ,  vol.  vi.,  1-408,  and  other  works  in  the  same 
volume.  Thos.  Hooker  (see  ante,  p.  192),  Survey  of  Summe  of  Church 
Discipline,  1648. —  Thos.  Shepard  (ante,  p.  192),  Power  of  Keys,  1653. 
John  Wise ,  (Ipswich,  New  Engl.)  Churches  Quarrel,  1710;  Vindication  of 
Gov.  of  Churches,  1715;  fourth  ed.,  Boston,  Congregational  Board,  1860. 
Cambridge  Platform,  1648.  Say  brook  Platform,  1708.] 


§  256.  Doctrine  about  the  Church. 


299 


The  definitions  concerning  the  relation  in  which  the  church  stands  to  the  state ,  depend 
on  those  concerning  the  nature  of  the  church.  According  to  Bellarmine's  definition, 
before  mentioned,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  a  state  quite  as  much  as  the  Republic 
of  Venice,  etc.  Accordingly,  it  is  independent  of  every  other  (secular)  state. — The  Pro¬ 
testants  also  maintained  that  the  church,  as  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  independent  of  all 
secular  power,  and  when  they  committed  the  government  of  the  visible  church  more  or 
less  into  the  hands  of  the  state,  they  had  not  the  intention  of  founding  for  it  that  system 
of  cesaropapacy  subsequently  established  [in  which  the  sovereign  took  the  place  of  the 
pope].  In  the  historical  point  of  view,  it  was  of  the  greatest  importance,  that  the  reform¬ 
ers,  in  an  age  so  full  of  commotions,  should  endeavour  to  maintain  the  authority  of  secular 
power,  as  “  an  institution  ordained  by  God,”  first,  by  securing  it  against  the  pretensions 
of  the  hierarchy,  which  undermined  the  existence  of  every  state ;  and,  secondly ,  by  an 
energetic  opposition  to  the  anarchical  notions  of  the  Anabaptists.  Thus  it  happened  that, 
in  most  confessions  of  faith,  the  article,  De  Magistratu,  was  laid  down  as  a  political  and 
moral  principle.  And  inasmuch  as  the  reformers,  at  the  same  time,  proceeded  on  the 
idea  of  a  Christian  magistracy  (analogous  to  the  theocratic  kings  of  the  Old  Testament), 
some,  e.  g.  Zwingle ,  were  of  opinion,  that  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  (the 
“  abolition  of  crimes”)  might  well  be  left  to  the  magistrate,  without  making  it  necessary 
to  have  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  court,  while  others,  as  (Ecolampadius  and  Calvin ,  re¬ 
tained  the  ecclesiastical  institution  of  excommunication,  but  reduced  it  to  its  primitive 
apostolical  form.  Comp.  Schrockh,  Kirchengeschichte  seit  der  Reformation,  iii.  p.  84. 
Henry's  Calvin,  ii.  p.  97,  Schenkel ,  iii.  338  sq. — According  to  the  first  Confess,  of  Basle, 
Art.  7,  the  Christian  Church  inflicts  the  punishment  of  excommunication  “  only  as  a  cor¬ 
rective,  and  gladly  receives  the  excommunicated  persons  back  into  her  fellowship,  when  they 
have  amended  their  scandalous  life.”  For  further  passages  from  the  symbolical  books  of 
the  Protestant  Churches,  see  Winer ,  p.  180.  On  the  controversy  begun  by  Thomas  Eras- 
tus  (Liebler)  of'Heidelberg  and  the  disputation  which  took  place  a.  d.  1568,  see  Beckhaus, 
fiber  den  Heidelberger  Katechismus,  1.  c.  p.  90  ss.  Athense  Raur.  p.  428.  Vierordt , 
Gesch.  der  Reform,  in  Grossh.  Baden,  p.  474  sq.  \J.  R.  Prettyman ,  The  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land  and  Erastianism,  Lond.  1854.  Pusey,  on  Royal  Supremacy,  1849.  W.  G.  Gladstone , 
The  State  in  its  Relations  with  the  Church,  2  vols.,  4th  ed.,  1841.  Comp,  also  the  debates 
in  the  Westminster  Assembly  ;  and  Hetherington's  History  of  the  same.]  A  question  of 
practical  importance  arose  on  the  point,  how  far  the  civil  power  should  cooperate  in  the 
suppression  of  heresy  or  error?  While  in  the  Wartburg  Luther  warned  the  Elector  about 
staining  himself  with  the  blood  of  the  false  prophets.  And  he  also  tanght,  that  u  heresy 
belongs  to  spiritual  things,  and  can  not  be  hewed  with  iron,  or  burnt  with  fire,  or  strangled 
in  water”  (see  Kostlin ,  p.  187).  To  this  was  opposed  the  procedure  of  the  governments 
in  the  case  of  the  Anabaptists  and  Anti-Trinitarians  (Servetus).  And  yet  they  were  de¬ 
fended  by  theologians,  particularly  in  the  Calvinistic  Church.  See  the  discussions  about  it 
in  Trechsel,  Servetus,  p.  265  sq. 


§  256. 


FURTHER  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  CONCERNING  THE 

CHURCH. 


Later  Protestant  theologians  developed  more  fully  the  difference 
between  ecclesia  visibilis  and  ecclesia  invisibilis  (in  addition  to 
which  the  other  distinction  between  ecclesia  militans  and  ecclesia  tri- 
umphans  continued  to  be  made).  The  ecclesia  visibilis  is  either 
universalis  (i.  e.  scattered  through  the  world),  or  particulars  ( i .  e . 
some  church  which  has  adopted  a  particular  form).  The  particular 
churches  are  either  opposed  to,  or  stand  on  friendly  terms  with,  each 


300 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


other.1  As  regards  the  organization  of  the  visible  church  (ecclesia 
synthetica),  the  Lutheran  divines  made  a  distinction  between  the 
status  ecclesiasticus,  the  status  politicus,  and  the  status  oeconomicus. 
Different  views  obtained  among  Calvinists  /  nor  did  they  agree  with 
the  Lutherans  as  to  the  representation  of  the  church  (ecclesia  re- 
prmsentativa).  But  these  formal  distinctions  were  of  less  import¬ 
ance  than  the  new  life  which  Spener  brought  into  the  church,  by 
restoring  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  a  spiritual  priesthood/  and  the 
work  which  Thomasius  performed  by  advocating  the  so-called  ter¬ 
ritorial  system.4  The  mystics  and  enthusiasts  offered,  like  the  sects 
of  the  middle  ages,  a  constant  opposition  to  all  ecclesiastical  estab¬ 
lishments,  both  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant.6 

1  The  passages  relative  to  this  distinction  are  quoted  from  the  works  of  the 
Protestant  theologians  by  De  'Wette  (Dogmatik  p.  191,  ss.),  and  Hase ,  Hut- 
terus  Redivivus,  p.  320,  ss. 

2  See  Wendelin ,  Alsted ,  and  Heidegger,  quoted  by  De  Wette ,  1.  c.  p.  195. 
— For  the  different  forms  of  church  government  ( e .  g.  the  government  of  the 
church  by  consistories  [in  the  Lutheran  Church],  Presbyterianism,  Indepen¬ 
dency,  etc.),  see  the  Canon  law. 

3  He  advanced  his  views  in  his  work  entitled :  Das  geistliche  Priester- 
thum ,  aus  gottlichem  Wort  hurzlich  beschrieben  und  mit  einem  einstimmigen 
Zeugnisse  gottseliger  Lehrer  beJcrdftigt ,  Frankf.,  1677,  8  (arranged  in  ques¬ 
tions  and  answers).  P.  7,  Qu.  11  :  “Does  the  title  of  priest  belong  to  none 
but  preachers?  Answ.  No;  preachers  are  not  properly  speaking,  priests, 
nor  is  that  title  applied  to  them  in  the  New  Test. ;  but  they  are  called  ser¬ 
vants  of  Christ,  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God,  bishops,  presbyters,  ser¬ 
vants  of  the  gospel,  of  the  Word  of  God,  etc.  The  name  priest  is  rather  a 
name  common  to  all  Christians,  nor  does  it  belong  to  ministers  in  a  dif¬ 
ferent  sense  from  that  in  which  it  belongs  to  other  Christians.”  1 2.  “  But 
are  not  the  priests  alone  the  1  Geistlichen  V  ”  [the  word  “  Geistlichen” 
has  a  twofold  signification,  i.  e .,  one  who  is  spiritually  minded,  and,  cler¬ 
gymen.]  Answ.  “  No ;  for  this  title  also  belongs  to  every  Christian 
(Rom.  viii.  5.) — Sacrificing,  praying,  and  blessing,  are  priestly  offices 
which  every  Christian  may  perform,  and  concerning  which  Christ  alone 
possesses  the  dignity  of  high  priest.” — Nevertheless  Spener  admitted,  like 
all  Protestants,  the  necessity  of  the  ministry.  Qu.  26.  '“  Are  all  Christians 
ministers,  and  are  all  called  upon  to  preach  ?”  Answ.  “  No ;  it  requires 
a  particular  vocation  to  fulfil  the  ministerial  duties  in  the  congregation  be - 
fore  all,  and  over  all,  its  members ;  therefore  he  who  of  himself  assumes 
such  powers  over  others,  and  encroaches  upon  the  rights  of  the  min¬ 
ister,  commits  sin ;  hence  teachers  and  hearers  are  different  persons,”  etc. 
(On  the  other  hand,  the  laity  possess  the  full  right  of  searching  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.  See  §  243,  note  7). 

4  According  to  Thomasius ,  the  reigning  prince  possesses  the  right  of 
regulating  the  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  his  country,  of  banishing  persons  who 
disturb  the  peace  of  the  church,  etc.  But  he  himself  cannot  be  subject  to 


§  257.  The  Adoration  of  Saints  and  Images. 


301 


ecclesiastical  discipline.  Thomasius,  however,  did  not  give  his  unqualified 
assent  to  the  principle  of  Hobbes  :  Cujus  regio,  illius  religio.  Comp,  his 
treatise  :  Yon  dem  Recht  evangelischer  Fiirsten  in  Mitteldingen  oder  Kir- 
chenceremoniem ;  it  appeared  1692,  in  Latin,  and  was  afterwards  translated 
into  German  ;  compare  also  the  treatise  entitled :  Das  Recht  evangelischer 
Fiirsten  in  theologischen  Streitigkeiten,  1696;  and  other  works,  referred 
to  by  Schrockh ,  Kirchengeschichte  seit  der  Reformation,  vii.  p.  541,  and 
Luden ,  1.  c. 

6  JBdhme ,  Kuhlmann ,  Gichtel ,  Labadie ,  Anna  Schurmann ,  Poiret ,  and 
others,  vied  with  each  other  in  attacks  upon  the  established  church  and  its 
ministers.  Poiret  called  the  theology  of  the  latter,  Theologia  adulatoria  seu 
culinaria  :  see  Arnold  iii.  p.  166.  J.  Bohme ,  heaped  reproaches  .upon  the 
priests  of  Baal. 


§  257. 

ADORATION  OF  SAINTS  AND  IMAGES. 

The  reformers  combated  the  invocation  and  adoration  of  saints, 
but  the  theologians  of  the  Roman  Catholic  as  well  as  the  Greek 
Church  retained  the  practice,  and  endeavored  to  defend  it  with 
the  arguments  brought  forward  at  an  earlier  period  by  the  scho¬ 
lastics,2  or  to  vindicate  it  against  the  charge  of  idolatry,  by  making 
use  of  idealising  interpretation.3  The  same  may  be  said  with  regard 
to  the  adoration  of  images  and  relics,4  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  cere¬ 
monies  in  general.  In  all  these  particulars  Calvinists  carried  their 
opposition  farther  than  Lutherans.5 

1  The  Protestants  did  not  teach  that  there  are  no  saints  at  all ,  but  only 
rejected  their  invocation.  See  Marheincke ,  Symbolik,  iii.  p.  439.  Conf. 
August.  Art.  21  :  De  cultu  Sanctorum  docent,  quod  memoria  Sanctorum 
proponi  potest,  ut  imitemur  fidem  eorum  et  bona  opera  juxta  vocationem. 
Sed  Scriptura  non  docet  invocare  Sanctos  seu  petere  auxilium  a  Sanctis, 
quia  unum  Christum  nobis  proponit  mediatorem,  propitiatorium,  pontificem 
et  intercessorem  :  hie  invocandus  est  et  promisit  se  exauditurum  esse  preces 
nostras,  et  hunc  cultum  maxime  probat.  Comp.  Apol.  p.  223. — The  Arti¬ 
cles  of  Smalcald  use  much  stronger  terms,  p.  310  :  Invocatio  Sanctorum  est 
etiam  pars  absurda  errorum  Antichristi,  pugnans  cum  primo  principali  ar- 
ticulo  et  delens  agnitionem  Christi. — Similar  principles  are  laid  down  in  the 
confessions  of  faith  adopted  by  the  Calvinists,  Arminians,  and  Socinians ;  see 
Winer,  p.  47.  [Bp.  Ridley ,  Treatise  on  Image- Worship,  in  Tracts  of  An¬ 
glican  Fathers,  vol.  ii. ;  Abp.  Wake,  on  Idolatry,  in  Gibson’s  Preserva¬ 
tive,  vol.  vi. ;  Freeman ,  Claggett ,  and  Whitby ,  on  Worship  of  Saints,  ibid., 
vol.  vii.] 

a  Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  25 :  (Doceant  episcopi)  Banctos  una  cum  Christo 
regnantes  orationes  suas  pro  hominibus  Deo  afferre,  bonum  atque  utile  esse  * 

*  Hence  the  invocation  of  saints  is  not  made  a  necessary  condition  of  salvation. 


302 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


suppliciter  eos  invocare  et  ob  beneficia  impetranda  a  Deo  per  filium  ejus 
Jesuin  Christum,  qui  solus  rioster  redemtor  et  salvator  est,  ad  eorum  ora- 
tiones,  opem  auxiliumque  confugere ;  illos  vero,  qui  negant,  Sanctos  seterna 
felicitate  in  ccelo  fruentes  invocandos  esse,  aut  qui  asserunt,  vel  illos  pro 
hominibus  non  orare,  vel  eorum,  ut  pro  nobis  etiam  singulis  orent,  invoca- 
tionem  esse  idololatriam,  vel  pugnare  cum  verbo  Dei  adversarique  honore 
unius  mediatoris  Dei  et  hominum  Jesu  Christi,  vel  stultum  esse,  in  coelo 
regnantibus  voce  vel  mente  supplicare,  impie  sentire. — Concerning  the  angels , 
the  Catech.  Rom.  3,  2.  10.  asserts  :  Invocandi  sunt,  quod  et  perpetuo  Deum 
intuentur  et  patrocinium  salutis  nostrae  sibi  delatum  libentissime  suscipiunt. 
— The  Roman  Catholics  also  retained  the  distinction  made  by  the  scho¬ 
lastics  between  invocatio  and  adoratio. — For  the  symbols  of  the  Greek 
Church  see  Winer,  p.  44-46. 

3  This  was  done  e.  g.  by  JBossuet,  Exposition  de  la  Doctrine  de  Peglise 
catholique,  Pag.  19:  The  Church,  in  teaching  us  the  utility  of  addressing 
prayers  to  the  saints,  commands  us  to  invoke  them  in  the  same  spirit,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  same  law  of  society,  which  induces  us  to  seek  assistance 
from  our  brethren  upon  earth. . .  .Pag.  27  :  It  is  in  this  manner  that  we 
honor  the  saints,  in  order  to  obtain  by  their  intercession  all  the  graces  of 
God  ;  the  principal  grace  which  we  hope  to  obtain  is  that  by  which  we  shall 
be  enabled  to  imitate  them  ;  to  this  we  are  also  excited  by  the  contempla¬ 
tion  of  their  admirable  examples,  and  by  the  honorable  mention  of  their 
blessed  memory  which  we  make  before  God.  Those  who  will  consider  the 
doctrine  which  we  propound,  will  be  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  we 
neither  take  from  God  any  of  those  perfections  which  are  essential  to  his 
infinite  essence,  nor  ascribe  to  created  beings  any  of  those  qualities  or  oper¬ 
ations  which  belong  to  none  but  God  himself ;  there  is  therefore  such  a 
great  difference  between  us  and  idolaters,  that  it  is  difficult  to  perceive  why 
our  opponents  give  us  that  name.... Pag.  80.  And,  lastly,  no  Roman 
Catholic  ( ?  ! )  ever  thought  that  the  saints  of  themselves  know  our  wants, 
nor  even  the  desires  on  account  of  which  we  address  to  them  secret  prayers. 
The  Church  has  been  content  to  teach,  in  accordance  with  all  antiquity, 
that  such  prayers  are  very  useful  to  those  who  offer  them,  whether  the  saints 
may  hear  of  them  by  the  medium  of  the  ministry  and  intercourse  of  the 
angels,  who,  according  to  Scripture,  know  what  happens  among  men 
whether  God  himself  makes  known  our  wishes  to  them  by  means  of  a  par¬ 
ticular  revelation,  or,  lastly,  reveals  to  them  our  secret  desires  in  his  infinite 
essence,  which  comprehends  all  truth.  Thus  the  Church  has  decided  nothing 
as  to  the  different  means  which  God  may  be  pleased  to  use  for  this  purpose. 

4  Comp.  Winer ,  p.  47,  ss.,  where  the  passages  bearing  upon  this  point  are 
quoted  from  the  symbolical  writings. 

.  6  Luther's  sermon  against  the  Iconoclasts  of  Wittenberg. — Similar  prin¬ 
ciples  to  those  adopted  by  Luther  were  defended  by  Schmid  in  the  disputa¬ 
tion  of  Zurich  ;  but  his  views  were  not  adopted.  During  the  period  of  the 
Interim,  the  Lutheran  Church  returned  to  many  of  the  ceremonies  of  the 
Romish  Church,  which  gave  rise  to  the  Adiaphoristic  controversy. — The 
minor  sects  followed  the  example  of  the  Reformed  Church. 


§  258.  The  Sacraments. 


303 


§  258. 

THE  SACRAMENTS. 

The  doctrine  of  seven  sacraments ,  which  both  the  Greek  and 
Roman  Churches-  adopted/  was  rejected  by  the  reformers,  who 
admitted  (after  some  wavering),  as  scriptural  only  tivo  sacraments' 
— viz.,  those  of  Baptism  and  of  the  Lord's  Supper.3  These  two, 
together  with  the  Word  of  God/  constitute,  in  the  Protestant  view, 
the  means  of  grace  (adminicula  gratise)  whiqji  profit  only  believers  / 
on  the  contrary,  the  theologians  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
asserted  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  ex  opere  operato.6  But  both 
Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants  agreed  to  the  necessity  of  sacra¬ 
ments  (in  opposition  to  Quakers)/  and  their  higher  significance  as  the 
medium  by  which  spiritual  blessings  are  communicated  (in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  Arminians,  Mennonites,  and  Socinians,  who  regard  them  as 
mere  ceremonies).8  Only  the  strict  Zwinglian  theory  limited  the 
sacraments  to  the  idea  of  a  mere  symbol  of  duty.9 

1  Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  7,  can.  1  :  Si  qnis  dixerit  sacramenta  sacra©  legis. . . . 
esse  plura  vel  pauciora  qnam  septem,  videlicet  baptismum,  confirmationem, 
eucharistiam,  poenitentiam,  extremam  unctionem,  ordinem  et  matrimonium, 
aut  etiam  aliquod  horum  septem  non  esse  vere  et  proprie  sacramentum  : 
anathema  sit. — The  reasons  why  the  number  seven  is  fixed  upon  are  more 
fully  developed  in  Catech.  Rom.  ii.  1,  20,  quoted  by  Winer,  p.  123,  where 
their  respective  dignity  is  also  determined,  ii.  1,  22  :  Sacramenta  non  parem 
omnia  et  asqualem  necessitatem  aut  dignitatem  habent,  atque  ex  iis  tria  sunt, 
quae,  tametsi  non  eadem  ratione,  tamen  prae  ceteris  necessaria  dicuntur,  bap- 
tismus,  poenitentia,  ordo ;  verum  si  dignitas  in  sacramentis  spectetur,  eucha- 
ristia  sanctitate  et  mvsteriorum  numero  ac  magnitudine  longe  caeteris 
antecellit,  Conf.  Orth.  p.  154  :  'E-nro.  pvorrjpia  rrp g  efcfchrjoiag,  ra,  bnota 
eIvcu  ravra *  to  fiaurtopa ,  ro  pvpov  rov  xpioparog,  7]  ev^apioria,  rj  pEravoia , 
i i  lepcjcrvvr],  6  riptog  yapog  na\  ro  EvxsXaiov  ravra  ra  ercra  pvarr\pia 
dvafiifid^ovraL  elg  ra  err  ra  \ aptapara  rov  ayiov  Tcvsvparog.  The  Greeks, 
however,  considered  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  the  principal  sacra¬ 
ments,  to  which  some  added  penance.  Comp.  Winer,  p.  124. 

2  At  first  Melancthon  even  doubted  about  the  propriety  of  making  use 
of  the  word  sacrament  (which  is  not  found  in  the  Bible) ;  see  his  Loci  Com¬ 
munes,  1521  (in  the  Corpus  Ref.,  ed.  Bretschneider,  p.  210) :  Quae  alii 
sacramenta,  nos  signa  adpellamus,  aut,  si  ita  libet,  signa  sqcramentalia ,  nam 
sacramentum  ipsum  Christum  Paulus  vocat. 

8  The  two  Catechisms  of  Luther  and  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  treat 
only  of  two  sacraments,  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper,  without  excluding 
the  other  five.  Melancthon  would  have  allowed  ordination  and  marriage  to 
be  sacraments  (see  Thiersch,  ii.  p.  200),  and  he  even  admitted  absolution. 
(Apol.  p.  167) :  Absolutio  proprie  dici  potest  sacramentum.  But  comp,  the 


304 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Loci,  1521  (Corp.  Ref.,  p.  211)  :  Duo  sunt  autem  signa  a  Christo  in  Evan- 
gelio  instituta  :  baptismus  et  participate  mensae  Domini.  Luther  also  spoke 
of  three  sacraments  in  his  De  Captiv.Babyl. :  Baptismus,  Pcenitentia,  Panis. 
On  the  contrary  in  the  Catech.  Major,  p.  549,  penance  is  included  in  bap¬ 
tism.  The  Apol.  Conf.,  p.  200,  is  opposed  to  regarding  seven  as  the  fixed 
number  :  Sed  liic  [adversarii]  jubent  nos  etiam  septem  sacramenta  numerare. 
Nos  sentimus  prsestandum  esse,  negligentur  res  in  ceremoniae  in  Scripturis 
institute,  quotcunque  sunt.  Nec  multum  referre  putamus,  etiamsi  docendi 
causa  alii  numerent  aliter,  si  tamen  recte  conservent  res  in  Scriptura  traditas. 
— Yet  the  Apology  also  mentions  penance  among  the  sacraments:  Yere  igi- 
tur  sunt  sacramenta  baptismus,  coena  Domini,  absolutio,  quae  est  sacramentum 
poenitentise. — The  number  two  is  more  definitely  stated  in  the  symbolical 
writings  of  the  Reformed  Church.  Confess.  Basil.  I.,  Art.  5,  §  2  :  In  this 
church  we  use  only  one  kind  of  sacrament — viz.  baptism,  by  which  we  are 
received  into  the  Church,  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  in  after  life,  as  a  testimony 
of  faith  and  brotherly  love,  according  to  our  promise  in  baptism. — Conf. 
Helv.  II.,  c.  19  :  Novi  populi  sacramenta  sunt  baptismus  et  coena  dominica. 
Sunt  qui  sacramenta  novi  populi  septem  numerent.  Ex  quibus  nos  poeni- 
tentiam,  ordinationem  ministrorum,  non  papisticam  quidam  illam,  sed  apos- 
tolicam,  et  matrimonium  agnoscimus  instituta  esse  Dei  utilia ,  sed  non  sacra¬ 
menta .  Confirmatio  et  extrema  unctio  inventa  sunt  hominum ,  quibus  nullo 
cum  damno  carere  potest  ecclesia.  Comp.  Conf.  Gall,,  Art.  35,  Belg.  33. 
Calvin,  Instit.  iv.,  c.  19.  [Anglican  (XXXIX.  Art.)  Art.  25 :  Sacraments 
ordained  of  Christ  be  not  only  badges  or  tokens  of  Christian  men’s  profes¬ 
sion,  but  rather  they  be  certain  sure  witnesses,  and  effectual  signs  of  grace, 
and  God’s  good  will  towards  us,  by  the  which  he  doth  work  invisibly  in  us, 
and  doth  not  only  quicken,  but  also  strengthen  and  confirm  our  faith  in 
him. — There  are  two  sacraments  ordained  of  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  gospel, 
that  is  to  say,  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord. — Those  five  commonly 
called  Sacraments,  that  is  to  say,  Confirmation,  Penance,  Orders,  Matrimony, 
and  Extreme  Unction,  are  not  to  be  counted  for  Sacraments  of  the  Gospel, 
being  such  as  have  grown  partly  of  the  corrupt  following  of  the  Apostles, 
partly  are  states  of  life  allowed  in  the  Scriptures,  but  yet  have  not  like  nature 
of  Sacraments  with  Baptism,  and  the  Lord’s  Supper,  for  that  they  have  not 
any  visible  sign  or  ceremony  ordained  of  God. — The  Sacraments  were  not  or¬ 
dained  of  Christ  to  be  gazed  upon,  or  to  be  carried  about,  but  that  we  should 
duly  use  them.  And  in  such  only  as  worthily  receive  the  same  they  have 
a  wholesome  effect  or  operation ;  but  they  that  receive  them  unworthily 
purchase  to  themselves  damnation,  as  Saint  Paul  saith. — This  Article  as  it 
now  stands,  is  largely  altered  from  its  form  in  Edward  the  YIth’s  Articles : 
Archb.  Parker  in  1562  inserted  the  clause  against  the  Popish  sacraments, 
employing  the  phrase  “extreme  annoyling for  this,  Bishop  Jewel,  1571, 
substituted  “  unction.”  See  Kidd  on  Thirty-nine  Articles,  p.  241.] 

[Westminster  Confession;  chapter  xxvii. :  Sacraments  are  holy  signs  and 
seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  immediately  instituted  by  God,  to  represent 
Christ  and  his  benefits,  and  to  confirm  our  interest  in  him  :  as  also  to  put  a 
visible  difference  between  those  that  belong  unto  the  church,  and  the  rest  of 
the  world :  and  solemnly  to  engage  them  to  the  service  of  God  in  Chris/:, 


§  258.  The  Sacraments. 


305 


according  to  his  word.  2.  There  is  in  every  sacrament  a  spiritual  relation  or 
sacramental  union,  between  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified,  whence  it  comes 
to  pass,  that  the  names  and  effects  of  the  one,  are  attributed  to  the  other. 
4.  There  be  only  two  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  Gospel, 
that  is  to  say,  Baptism,  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  :  neither  of  which  may 
be  dispensed  by  any,  but  a  minister  of  the  word,  lawfully  ordained.]  The 
Arminians  also  had  only  two  sacraments.  The  Mennonites  made  mention  of 
the  washing  of  feet  as  a  usage  instituted  by  Christ  (according  to  John  xii.) ; 
but  Hies,  Conf.,  Art.  30,  spoke  only  of  two  sacraments.  Comp.  Winer ,  p. 
124. 

4  In  the  view  of  Protestants,  the  sacred  Scriptures  are  not  only  the  source 
of  knowledge,  but  the  Word  of  God  contained  in  them  is  a  living  and 
quickening  principle.  Both  the  law  and  the  gospel  have  each  their  peculiar 
evzpyeia,  the  former  that  of  bringing  men  to  the  knowledge  of  sin,  the  lat¬ 
ter  that  of  being  the  medium  through  which  grace  is  bestowed  on  them 
(Art.  of  Smalcald,  p.  319). — The  Catech.  Rom.  (iv.  13,  18)  also  speaks  of 
the  Word  of  God  as  a  cibus  animi,  and  places  it  on  the  same  level  with  the 
sacraments,  but  understands  by  it  the  prcedicatio  verbi  as  sanctioned  by  the 
Church,  rather  than  the  Scriptures. 

6  Confess.  August,  p.  11  :  Per  verbum  et  sacramenta,  tanquam  per  in- 
strumenta,  donatur  Spir.  S.,  qui  fidem  efficit,  ubi  et  quando  visum  est  Deo,  in 
iis  qui  audiunt  evangelium,  etc.  Comp.  Cat.  Maj.  p.  426,  Art.  Smalcald,  p. 
331,  Form.  Concord,  p.  670. — Conf.  Helv.  II.  cap.  1.  Belg.  24. — Heidelberg. 
Catechism,  Qu.  65  :  Whence  cometh  (justifying)  faith  ?  Answ.  The  Holy 
Spirit  produces  it  in  our  hearts  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  con¬ 
firms  it  by  the  use  of  the  sacraments.* — On  the  other  hand,  the  Protestant 
symbols  are  equally  definite  against  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine.  Confess. 
Aug.  p.  13  :  Damnant^  illos,  qui  docent,  quod  sacramenta,  ex  opere  operato 
justificent,  nec  docent  fidem  requiri  in  usu  sacramentorum,  quae  credat 
remitti  peccata.  Apol.  p.  203  :  Damnamus  totum  populum  scholasticorum 
doctorum,  qui  docent,  quod  sacramenta  non  ponenti  obicem  conferant  grar- 
tiam  ex  opere  operato ,  sine  bono  motu  utentis.  Haec  simpliciter  judaica 
opinio  est,  sentire,  quod  per  ceremoniam  justificemur,  sine  bono  motu  cordis, 
k.  e.  sine  fide. .  .  .  At  sacramenta  sunt  signa  promissionum.  Igitur  in  usu 
debet  accedere  fides. . . . Loquimur  hie  de  fide  special!,  quae  praesenti  pro- 
missioni  credit,  non  tantum,  quae  in  genere  credit,  Deum  esse,  sed  quae  credit 
offerri  remissionem  peccatorum. — Helv.  II.  c.  19  :  Neque  vero  approbamus 
istorum  doctrinam,  qui  docent,  gratiam  et  res  significatas  signis  ita  alligari 
et  includi,  ut  quicunque  signis  exterius  parti cipent,  etiam  interius  gratiae 
rebusque  significatis  participes  sint,  qualesquales  sint. . .  .Minime  probamus 
eos,  qui  sanctificationem  sacramentorum  attribuunt  nescio  quibus  characteri- 
bus  et  recitationi  vel  virtuti  verborum  pronuntiatorum  a  consecratore  et  qui 
habeat  intentionem  consecrandi. — But  Protestant  theologians  also  taught 
that  the  integritas  of  the  sacrament  did  not  depend  on  the  dignity  either  of 

*  This  in  allusion  to  the  enthusaists. — On  the  division  of  the  means  of  grace  into  domed, 
kclI  hrjKTuca  (Quenstedt,  Syst.,  iv.,  p.  281),  see  Gass,  i.  372  [the  former  as  offered  to  man, 
the  latter  as  received  by  man.1 


306 


Fourth  Period  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


the  person  who  administered  it,  or  of  him  who  receives  it.  Conf.  Helvet 
1.  c.  [Westminster  Conf.  above,  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  XXVI.:  Although 
in  the  visible  Church  the  evil  be  ever  mingled  with  the  good,  and  sometimes 
the  evil  have  chief  authority  in  the  Ministration  of  the  Word  and  Sacra¬ 
ments,  yet  forasmuch  as  they  do  not  the  same  in  their  own  name,  but  in 
Christ’s,  and  do  minister  by  his  commission  and  authority,  we  may  use  their 
Ministry,  both  in  hearing  the  Word  of  God,  and  in  receiving  of  the  Sacra¬ 
ments.  Neither  is  the  effect  of  Christ’s  ordinance  taken  away  by  their 
wickedness,  nor  the  grace  of  God’s  gifts  diminished  from  such  as  by  faith 
and  rightly  do  receive  the  Sacraments  ministered  unto  them  ;  which  be 
effectual,  because  of  Christ’s  institution  and  promise,  although  they  be  min¬ 
istered  by  evil  men. — Nevertheless,  it  appertaineth  to  the  discipline  of  the 
church,  that  inquiry  be  made  of  evil  ministers,  and  that  they  be  accused  by 
those  who  have  knowledge  of  their  offences;  and,  finally,  being  found 
guilty,  by  just  judgment,  be  deposed.] 

6  Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  7,  can.  8  :  Si  quis  dixerit,  per  ipsa  novae  legis  sacra- 
menta  ex  opere  operato  non  conferri  gratiam,  sed  solam  fidem  divinae  pro- 
missionis  ad  gratiam  consequendam  sufficere :  anathema  sit. — The  further 
development  of  this  doctrine  by  Bellarmine ,  De  Sacram.  ii.  1,  is  given  by 
Wine r,  p.  125.  Against  the  objections  of  the  Protestants,  Cone.  Trident, 
sess.  xiv.  c.  4  :  Quamobrem  falso  quidam  calumniantur  catholicos  scriptores, 
quasi  tradiderint,  sacramentum  poenitentiae  absque  bono  motu  suscipientium 
gratiam  conferre,  quod  nunquam  Ecclesia  docuit  neque  sensit.  See  Thiersch , 
Protest,  p.  210. 

7  The  Quakers  reject  both  the  idea  and  the  name  of  a  sacrament.  They 
only  acknowledge  spiritual  baptism  and  a  mystical  Lord’s  Supper.  Barclay , 
Apol.  xii.  12,  quoted  by  Winer,  p.  120. 

8  See  the  passages  quoted  by  Winer,  pp.  122,  123,  and  compare  the  fol¬ 
lowing  §.  The  difference  referred  to  may  (after  the  example  of  Winer)  be 
so  defined,  that  according  to  the  Roman  Catholics,  Lutherans,  and  Calvinists, 
God  bestows  something  on  man  by  the  medium  of  the  sacrament,  while 
those  sects  taught  that  man  renders  something  to  God  (or  testifies  to  some¬ 
thing  in  the  presence  of  men  before  God).  Yet  the  idea  of  service  on  man’s 
partis  also  contained  in  the  Catholic  view  of  sacrifice.  See  the  next  section. 

9  Zwingle ,  De  vera  et  falsa  Relig.  p.  231 :  Sunt  sacramenta  signa  vel 
ceremonm  (pace  tamen  omnium  dicam,  sive  neotericorum  sive  veterum}* 
quibus  se  homo  ecclesise  probat  aut  candidatum  aut  militem  esse  Christi, 
redduntque  ecclesiam  totam  potius  certiorem  de  tua  fide,  quam  te ;  si  enim 
fides  tua  non  aliter  fuerit  absoluta,  quam  ut  signo  ceremoniali  ad  confirma- 
tionem  egeat,  fides  non  est :  fides  enim  est,  qua  nitimur  misericordise  Dei 
inconcusse,  firmiter  et  indistracte,  ut  multis  locis  Paulus  habet.  Comp.  Fidei 
Rat.  ad  Carol.  V. :  Credo  omnia  sacramenta  tarn  abesse  ut  gratiam  confe- 
rant,  ut  ne  afferant  quidem  aut  dispensent. ...  Credo,  sacramentum  esse 
saerse  rei  A.  e.factce  gratice  signum. — Klare  Underrich tung  vom  Nachtmahl 
Christi  (Works  ii.  1)  p.  429  :  “A  sacrament  is  the  sign  of  a  sacred  thing. 

*  This  does  not  harmonize  with  the  caption  given  by  Schenkel ,  i.  4L2  sq.  “  The  Depre* 
datum  of  the  Sacrament  by,  the  Reformed .” 


§  258.  The  Sacraments. 


307 


....  Now  the  priests  well  knew  that  this  word  sacrament  denotes  nothing 
but  a  sign,  nevertheless  they  left  the  simple-minded  in  the  mistaken  idea, 
that  it  was  something  else,  or  something  very  precious,  which  they  (the 
simple-minded)  did  not  understand,  but  were  induced  to  believe  that  the 
sacrament  was  God  himself.”  Annot.  in  Evang.  Matth.  (Opera,  vi.  p.  373): 
Ad  hoc  enim  Christus  sacramenta  instituit,  non  ut  his  jam  justitiam  quae- 
reremus  aut  collocaremus,  sed  ut  per  hsec  admoniti  et  excitati  ad  veram 
coru;si  adeoque  fidei  justitiam  penetrareraus.  Signa  enim  externa  non  justi- 
ficant,  ut  quidam  perhibent,  sed  justificationis  per  fidem  admonent  et  vitae 
innocentiam  excitant. — Annot.  in  Evang.  Marci,  ib.  p.  554  :  Nequaquam 
rejicienda  sacramenta  quae  Deus  instituit,  sed  summa  cum  religione  et  vene- 
ratione  tractanda*  Yerum  his  tribuere  quod  solius  est  Dei,  non  minus  est 
impium.  Comp,  his  Expositio  Fidei  (Opera,  iv.  2,  p.  56)  :  Sacramenta  res 
sanctae  et  venerandae  sunt,  utpote  a  summo  sacerdote  Christo  institutae  et 
susceptae. ...  Testimonium  rei  gestae  praebent. . . .  Vice  rerum  sunt,  quas 
significant,  unde  et  nomina  eorum  sortiuntur. . . . Res  arduas  significant. 
Ascendit  autem  cuj usque  signi  pretium  cum  aestimatione  rei,  cujus  est  sig- 
num,  ut  si  res  sit  magna,  pretiosa  et  amplifica,  jam  signum  ejus  rei  eo  majus 
reputetur.  (Annulus  reginae  uxoris  tuae,  quo  earn  despondit  tua  majestas, 
illi  non  auri  pretio  aestimatur,  sed  pretium  omne  superat,  etc.).  . . .  Auxilium 
opemque  afferunt  fidei.  .  .  .Vice  jurisjurandi  sunt.  [See,  further,  in  Chris¬ 
toff  el's  Zwingle,  Cochran’s  translation,  1858,  seventh  section.] — Comp,  the 
Catechism  of  Leo  Judce  ( Grab’s  edition),  p.  227  :  “As  Christ  will  not  break 
the  bruised  reed,  nor  quench  the  smoking  flax,  he  has  appointed  for  us,  his 
members,  while  here  in  the  flesh,  two  external  signs  of  duty ,  that  our  tim¬ 
idity  may  abate.”  Page  329  :  “A  sacrament  is  an  oath ,  or  sacred  duty  : 
those  who  speak  to  us  of  holy  matters  have  called  it  a  sign  of  sacred  things, 
to  present  and  image  forth  these  things  to  us ;  whereby,  too,  those  who 
make  use  of  it  bind  and  pledge  themselves  to  these  same  holy  things.” — 
Calvin  unfolds  the  idea  of  the  sacrament  in  the  4th  Book  of  his  Institutes, 
cap.  14.  He  defines  the  sacrament,  in  §  1,  the  externum  symbolutn,  quo 
benevolentim  erga  nos  suae  promissiones  conscientiis  nostris  Dominus  obsignat, 
ad  sustinendam  fidei  nostrse  imbecillitatem,  et  nos  vicissim  pietatem  erga 
eum  nostram  tarn  coram  eo  et  angelis  quam  apud  homines  testamur.  §  3  : 
Ex  hac  definitione  intelligimus,  nunquam  sine  prseeunte  promissione  esse 
sacramentum,  sed  ei  potius  tamquam  appendicem  quandam  adjungi,  eo  fine, 
ut  promissionem  suam  confirmet  ac  obsignet,  nobisque  testatiorem,  imo 
ratam  quodammodo  faciat :  quo  modo  nostrae  ignorantise  ac  tarditati  primum, 
deinde  infirmitati  opus  esse  Deus  providet :  neque  tamen  (proprie  loquendo) 
tam  ut  sacrum  suum  sermonem  firmet,  quam  ut  nos  in  ipsius  fide  stabiliat, 
siquidem  Dei  veritas  per  se  satis  solida  certaque  est,  nee  aliunde  meliorem 
confirmationem,  quam  a  se  ipsa  accipere  potest.  Yerum  ut  exigna  est  et 
imbecilla  nostra  fides,  nisi  undique  fulciatur,  ac  modis  omnibus  sustentetur, 
statim  concutitur,  fluctuatur,  vacillat  adeoque  labascit.  §  9  :  Quamobrem 
....  velim  lectorem ....  non  quasi  arcanam  vim  nescio  quam  illis  perpetuo 
insitam  putem,  qua  fidem  per  se  promovere  aut  confirmare  valeant,  sed  quia 

*  This  does  not  harmonize  with  the  caption  given  by  Schenkel,  l  412  sq.,  viz.,  “  The  De¬ 
preciation  of  the  Sacrament  by  the  Reformed 


308 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


sunt  in  hoc  a  Domino  instituta,  ut  stabiliendse  augendseque  fidei  serviant.  • 
§  12,  be  calls  sacraments  pignora.  He  refutes  not  only  those  who  despise 
the  sacraments,  but  also  those  (§  14),  qui  arcanos  nescio  quas  virtutes  sacra* 
mentis  affingunt,  quae  nusquam  illis  a  Deo  insitse  leguntur. — The  substance 
of  the  sacraments  (materia  et  substantia)  is  Christ  himself  (§  16) ;  they 
have  in  him  their  soliditas.  They  are  nothing,  separated  from  him.  Cal* 
vin  does  not  hold  to  a  specific  difference  between  the  sacraments  and  the  Word. 
§  17  :  Quamobrem  fixum  maneat,  non  esse  alias  sacramentorum  quam  verbi 
Dei  partes :  quae  sunt  offerre  nobis  ac  proponere  Christum,  et  in  eo  ccelestis 
gratiae  thesaurus  :  nihil  autem  conferunt  aut  prosunt  nisi  fide  accepta. — He 
also  calls  the  Old  Testament  types  (Noah’s  rainbow,  etc.),  sacraments  (§  18), 
and  only  distinguishes  them  from  the  New  Testament  sacraments  by  the 
act  that  the  former  represent  the  promised  Messiah  in  type,  the  latter  tes¬ 
tify  to  him  in  fact  (§  20).  Comp.  §  26  :  TJtraque  paternam  Dei  in  Christo 
benevolentiam  ac  Spiritus  Sancti  gratias  nobis  offerri  testantur ;  sed  nostra 
illustrius  ac  luculentius.  In  utrisque  Christi  exhibitio  ;  sed  in  his  uberior  ac 
plenior.  Comp.  Schenkel,  i.  425,  sq .,  and  the  passages  there  adduced. 


§  259. 

THE  SACRIFICE  OF  THE  MASS.  THE  LORD’S  SUPPER. 

Lavater ,  L.  Historia  Controversiae  Sacramentarise.  Tigur.,  1563,  1672.  Hospiniani,  ZT 
Historia  Sacramentaria,  Tigur.,  1598,  1602,  ii.  f.,  1611,  4.  The  Works  of  Luther  ( Watch , 
vol.  xvii,  xx.)  Ebrard's  Abendmahl,  ii. ;  M.  Gobel,  Luther’s  Abendmahlslehre  vor 
und  in  dem  Streite  mit  Carlstadt  (Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1843).  Julius  Muller ,  Lutheri 
et  Calvini  Sententise  de  sacra  Ccena  inter  se  comparatse,  Hal.  1853,  4to.  A.  W.  Li - 
eckhoff,  Die  Evangelische  Abendmahls  lehre  in  Reformations  zeit  alter,  Gotting. 
1854.  [K.  F.  A.  Kahnis,  Die  Lehre  von  Abendmahle,  1851.  L.  J.  Euckert,  Das 

Abendmahl,  Wesen,  Geschichte,  Leipz.  1856:  comp.  Baur,  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  1857: 
and  Euckert  in  Zeitschrift  f.  wiszenchafl.  Theologie,  1858. — John  Cesirn ,  Hist,  of 
Popish  Transubstantiation,  new  ed.  by  J.  Brewer,  1851.  Jeremy  Taylor.  The  Real 
Presence  and  Spiritual  of  Christ,  against  Transubstant.  (Works,  vol.  ix,  x).  See  also 
the  works  of  Hooker,  Abp.  Bramhall  and  Bishop  Andrews ,  for  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Hampden's  Bampton  Lectures  (viii).  W.  Wright,  Doctrine  of 
Real  Presence  in  the  Divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  2  Parts,  1855.  E.  B.  Pusey, 
The  Real  Presence,  the  Doctrine  of  the  English  Church,  with  Yindication  of  the  Re¬ 
ception  of  the  Wicked,  and  of  the  Adoration  of  Jesus  Christ  truly  present,  1857 : 
ibid.,  The  Holy  Eucharist  a  Comfort  to  the  Penitent,  a  Sermon,  1843.  W.  Goode, 
The  Nature  of  Christ’s  Presence  in  the  Eucharist,  2,  1856  (against  Pusey,  and  in  the 
Denison  case).  E.  J.  Wilberforce,  Doctrine  of  Eucharist,  1853.  Tracts  for  the  Times, 
No.  81.] 

?  * 

While  the  Reformers  made  common  cause  in  their  opposition  not 
only  to  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation/  hut  especially  to  the  sac¬ 
rifice  of  the  mass/  and  the  witholding  of  the  cup  from  the  laity/ 
all  of  which  they  rejected  as  unscriptural,  they  still  differed  widely  in 
their  opinions  concerning  the  positive  aspect  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Lord’s  Supper.  Different  interpretations  of  the  words  pronounced 


§  259.  The  Lord’s  Supper.  309 

by  our  Saviour  at  the  institution  of  this  sacrament  were  at  short  in¬ 
tervals  advanced  by  Carlstadtf  Zwingle /  and  (Ecolampadius * 
Luther  opposed  all  these,  in  his  controversial  writings/  and  in  the 
Colloquium  of  Marburg  (1529,  Oct.),8  and  even  to  the  close  of  his 
life.  He  insisted  upon  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  words  of  the 
institution  of  the  Supper  ;  and,  as  a  consequence,  upon  the  actual 
reception  with  the  mouth  of  the  glorified  body  of  Christ,  present  in 
the  bread,  and  of  his  real  blood.  In  accordance  with  his  views  the 
authors  of  the  symbolical  books  of  the  Lutheran  Church  declared 
the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  of  Christ’s  body  and  blood  in  the 
Eucharist  ( Consubstantiation ),  and  along  with  it  (in  part)  that  of 
the  ubiquity  of  his  body,9  to  be  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the 
Church.10  The  divines  of  the  Reformed  Church  never  denied  a 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  though  they  did  not  expressly 
emphasize  it.11  But  they  did  not  look  for  this  presence,  testified  by 
faith ,  in  the  bread,  and  interpreted  the  reception  of  Christ  in  the 
ordinance,  not  as  that  of  his  body  received  by  the  mouth,  but  as  a 
spiritual  participation.13  Calvin 13  in  particular,  after  the  precedence 
of  Bucer,  emphasized  this  spiritual  participation,  and  thus  made 
the  Lord’s  Supper  not  a  mere  sign,  but  a  seal  and  pledge  of  divine 
grace  imparted  to  the  communicants.  Thus  there  always  remained 
this  important  difference,  that  even  in  Calvin’s  view,  it  is  only  the 
believer  who  is  united  with  Christ  in  the  sacrament ;  and  that  the 
body  of  Christ,  as  such,  is  not  in  the  bread,  but  in  heaven,  from 
whence,  in  a  mysterious  and  dynamic  way  it  is  imparted  to  the  com¬ 
municant  ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  Luther,  from  the  objective  point 
of  view,  maintained  that  the  unbelieving  also  partake  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  in ,  ivitli ,  and  under  the  bread ,  though  they  do  it  to  their 
own  hurt.14  The  view  of  Schwenkfeldf  resting  upon  a  perversion 
of  the  words  of  the  institution,  had  but  slight  influence.  The  most 
prosaic  view  is  that  of  the  Socinians,  Arminians,  and  Mennonites, 
who,  in  connection  with  their  more  negative  opinions  on  the  nature 
of  the  sacraments,  regarded  the  Lord’s  Supper  merely  as  an  act  of 
commemoration.16  And,  lastly,  the  Quakers  believed,  that  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  their  internal  and  spiritual  union  with  Christ,  they 
might  wholly  dispense  with  partaking  of  his  body.17  [The  West¬ 
minister  Confession  is  in  harmony  with  the  views  of  Calvin  :18  the 
Independents  and  Baptists  adopted  substantially  the  theory  of 
Zwingle.  The  Church  of  England  laid  more  stress  upon  the  real 
presence,  and  upon  the  idea  of  the  eucharistic  sacrifice.19] 

1  Luther  combated  the  idea  of  transubstantiation  both  in  his  treatise  De 
Captiv.  Babyl.,  and  in  his  controversy  with  Henry  VIII.,  who  defended  the 
scholastic  doctrine.  (Comp.  "Which,  xix.)  [Henry  VIII. :  Adsertio  septem 
sacramentorum  adversus  Mart.  Lutherum.  Lond.,  1521,  4to.  Rom.,  1521 
(the  Pope  granted  to  Henry  in  consequence  the  title  Defensor  Fidel) ;  transl. 


310 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


by  T.  W.,  Lond.,  1687.  In  1526,  Literarum  quibus  invictissimus  Princeps, 
Henricus  octavus. .  .  .Fidei  Defensor,  respondit  ad  qnandam  Epistolam  Mart. 
Luth.,  etc.,  1526.]  Yet  Luther  himself  made  use  of  the  expression  transub- 
stantiation  (Verwandlung)  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Venerable  Sacrament,  1519, 
(cited  in  Ebrard ,  ii.  112).  The  Symbols  also  declare  against  trail  substantia- 
tion.  Art.  Smalcald,  p.  330  :. .  .  .De  transsubstantiatione  subtilitatem  sophis- 
ticam  nihil  curamus,  qua  fingunt,  panem  et  vinem  relinquere  et  amittere 
naturalem  suam  substantiam  et  tantum  speciem  et  colorem  panis  et  non  ve- 
rum  panem  remanere. — Form.  Cone.,  p.  729  :  Extra  usum  dum  reponitur 
ant  asservatur  (panis  vel  hostia)  in  pyxide  ant  ostenditur  in  processionibus, 
ut  fit  apud  Papistas,  sentiunt  non  adesse  corpus  Christi.  P.  760  :  Negamus 
elementa  ilia  sen  visibiles  species  benedicti  panis  et  vini  adorari  oportere. — • 
Comp.  Conf.  Helv.  II.,  Art.  21  (p.  74,  Augusti).  On  the  other  side,  Cone. 
Trid.,  Sess.  13,  can.  4 :  Denuo  hoc  sancta  sy nodus  declarat,  per  consecratio- 
nem  panis  et  vini  conversionem  fieri  totius  substantiae  panis  in  substantiam 
corporis  Christi,  et  totius  substantiae  vini  in  substantiam  sanguinis  ejus,  quae 
conversio  convenienter  et  proprie  a  sancta  catholica  ecclesia  transubstantia¬ 
te  est  appellata.  Comp.  Cat.  Rom.,  II.,  4,  37.  Bellarmine ,  Controv.  de 
Sacram.  Euch.,  iii.,  18-24. 

2  It  was  not  only  the  theology  of  the  reformers,  but  also  the  common 
sense  of  the  people,  which  opposed  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass ,  as  well  as  the 
adoration  of  images.  At  least  in  Switzerland  these  two  points  were  closely 
connected  with  each  other.  Thus  at  the  second  disputation  of  Zurich  (Zuin- 
glii  Opera,  ed.,  Schulthess,  i.,  p.  459  ss.).  Among  the  many  works  either 
for  or  against  the  mass,  compare  e.  g.  the  following :  Ob  die  Mess  ein  Opffer 
sey,  beyder  parteyen  Predicanten  zu  Basel  antwurt  uff  erforschung  eins  Er- 
samen  radts  eingelegt,  1527.  (The  Reformed  Church  was  led  by  (Ecolam- 
padius.) — “  No  part  of  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  has  met  with  more  violent 
opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Reformers ,  than  the  mass ,  which  is  rejected  in 
the  symbolical  writings  of  the  Lutherans  as  well  as  the  Reformed  Church , 
not  only  in  strong  terms ,  but  even  with  expressions  of  abhorrence .”  Winer , 
p.  148.  To  the  mass  as  such,  Luther  and  his  followers  did  not  object.  “  The 
nearer,”  said  Luther ,  “  our  masses  are  to  the  first  mass  of  Christ,  the  better 
they  will  be  ;  the  greater  the  distance  between  them,  the  more  pernicious 
they  are.”  (Sermon  von  dem  N.  Test.,  1520.)  We  meet  with  similar  lan¬ 
guage  in  the  symbolical  writings  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  e.  g.  the  Confess. 
Aug.  p.  23  :  Falso  accusantur  ecclesiae  nostrae,  quod  Missam  aboleant;  retine- 
tur  enim  Missa  apud  nos,  et  summa  reverentia  celebratur.  Servantur  et 
usitatae  ceremonise  fere  omnes,  praeterquam  quod  latinis  cantionibus  admis- 
centur  alicubi  germanicse,  quae  additae  sunt  ad  docendum  populum. — On  the 
other  hand,  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  the  abuses  to  which  it  gave  rise, 
such  as  private  masses,  masses  for  the  dead,  etc.,  were  rejected,  p.  25  :  Ac- 
cessit  opinio,  quae  auxit  privatas  Missas  in  infinitum,  videlicet,  quod  Chr.  sua 
passione  satisfecerit  pro  peccato  originis,  et  instituerit  Missam,  in  qua  fieret 
oblatio  pro  quotidianis  delictis,  raortalibus  et  venialibus.  Ilinc  manavit  pub- 
lica  opinio,  quod  Missa  sit  opus  delens  peccata  vivorum  et  mortuorum  ex 
opere  operato. . .  .De  his  opinionibus  nostri  admonuerunt,  quod  dissentiant  a 
scripturis  sanctis  et  laedant  gloriam  passionis  Christi.  Nam  passio  Christi 


§  259.  The  Lord’s  Supper. 


311 


fait  oblatio  et  satisfactio,  non  solum  pro  culpa  originis,  sed  etiam  pro  omni¬ 
bus  reliquis  peccatis. .Jam  si  Missa  delet  peccata  vivorum  et  mortuorum 
ex  opere  operato,  contingit  justificatio  ex  opere  Missarum,  non  ex  fide,  quod 
Scriptura  non  patitur.  Comp.  Apol.  of  Conf.,  250,  269.  A  definite  distinc¬ 
tion  is  made  between  the  sacramentum  and  sacrificium,  in  Art.  xiii.,  §  1 7  (p. 
253) :  Sacramentum  est  ceremonia  vel  opus,  in  quo  Deus  nobis  exhibet  hoc, 
quod  ofFert  annexa  ceremonise  promissio,  ut  Baptismus  est  opus,  non  quod 
nos  Deo  ofFerimus,  sed  in  quo  Deus  nos  baptizat,  videlicet  minister  vice  Dei, 
et  hie  offert  et  exhibet  Deus  remissionem  peccatorum.  .  .  .E  contra  sacrifi- 
cium  est  ceremonia  vel  opus,  quod  nos  Deo  reddimus  et  eum  honore  afficia- 
mus.  (Expiatory  sacrifice,  and  sacrifice  of  thanks :  the  latter  to  be  brought 
by  believers,  but  not  ex  opere  operato,  sed  propter  fidem).  Art.  Sinalcald, 
p.  305  :  Quod  Missa  in  papatu  sit  maxima  et  horrenda  abominatio  et  hostila- 
ter  e  diametro  pugnans  contra  articulum  prifnum,  quae  tamen  prse  omnibus 
aliis  pontificiis  idololatriis  summa  et  speciosissima  fuit.  Form.  Cone.  p.  602. 
Calvin  speaks  very  strongly  against  the  mass  :  Instit.  iv.  18, 18  :  Certe  nulla 
unquam  validiore  machina  Satan  incubuit  ad  oppugnandum  expugnandum- 
que  Christi  regnum.  Haec  est  Helena,  pro  qua  veritatis  hostes  tanta  hodio 
rabie,  tanto  furore,  tanta  atrocitate  digladiantur,  et  vere  Helena,  cum  qua 
spirituali  fornicatione  (quae  omnium  est  maxime  exsecrabilis,)  ita  se  conspur- 
cant.  And  so  in  the  symbolical  writings  of  the  Reformed  Church  the 
mass  is  entirely  rejected,  nor  is  a  distinction  made  between  the  earlier  and  the 
later  mass.  Ileidelberger  Catechism,  Qu.  80 ... .  Hence  the  mass  is  in 
reality  nothing  but  a  denial  of  the  one  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  an 
execrable  idolatry.  Conf.  Helv.,  II.,  c.  21  :  Missa,  qualis  aliquando 
apud  veteres  fuerit,  tolerabilis  an  intolerabilis,  modo  non  disputamus ;  hoc 
autem  libere  dicimus,  Missam,  qurn  hodie  in  usu  est  per  universam  romanam 
ecclesiam,  plurimas  et  justissimas  quidem  ob  caussas  in  ecclesiis  nostris  esse 
abrogatam. — On  this  subject  the  symbolical  writings  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  express  themselves  as  follows,  Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  22,  can.  1 :  Si  quis 
dixerit,  in  Missa  non  offeri  Deo  verum  et  proprium  sacrificium,  aut  quod  ofFerri 
non  $it  aliud,  quam  nobis  Christum  ad  manducandum  dari ;  anathema  sit. . .  . 
Can.  3 :  Si  quis  dixerit,  Missse  sacrificium  tantum  esse  laudis  et  gratiarum  ac 
tionis,  aut  nudam  commemorationem  sacrificii  in  cruce  peracti,  non  autem 
propitiatorium,  veli  sol  prodesse  sumenti,  neque  pro  vivis  et  defunctis,  pro  pec¬ 
catis,  poenis,  satisfactionibus  et  aliis  necessitatibus  ofFerri  dehere  :  anathema  sit. 
Bellarmine  Controv.  de  Eueh.  lib.  5  and  6,  the  principal  passages  of  which  are 
quoted  by  Winer ,  p.  148. — In  the  Confess.  Orthod.  of  the  Greek  Church,  also, 
p.  165,  the  Eucharist  is  called  avaigaitTog  Ovola.  For  further  statements,  see 
Winer,  p.  149. — The  fuller  development  of  the  arguments  advanced  by 
Roman  Catholic  theologians,  especially  Bellarmine,  in  support  of  the  idea 
of  a  sacrifice,  will  be  found  in  Marheinelce ,  Symbolik  iii.  p.  351,  ss.  Partic¬ 
ularly  remarkable  are  the  exegetical  arguments,  e.  g.,  that  derived  from  the 
phrase  :  Hoc  facite  in  memoriam  meam,  where  they  maintain  that  facere 
is  sometimes  used  in  the  sense  of  sacrificing,  analogous  to  the  Hebrew  word 
?f©y  (Exod.  xxix.  41  ;  Numb.  xv.  3  ;  Ps.  lvi.  15) ;  or  that  derived  from  the 
history  of  Melchisedec,  where  they  assign  to  the  word  the  meaning  of 


312 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


sacrificing,  because  it  is  translated  e^fjveyice  (obtulit)  by  the  LXX*  Mar- 
heineke  1.  c.  pp.  377,  378. 

3  Confession  of  Augsb.  p.  21  :  Apology  of  Conf.  p.  233  ;  Art.  of  Smal- 
cald,  p.  330  ;  Formula  Concordiae,  p.  602.  Conf.  Helv.  II.  c.  21  :  Impro- 
bamus  illos,  qui  alteram  speciem,  poculam  inquam  Domini,  fidelibus  subtraxe- 
runt.  Graviter  enim  peccant  contra  institutionem  Domini.  Confess.  Anglic, 
p.  94.  Conf.  Scotica,  Art.  22.  Declaratio  Thorunens.  p.  64.  Consensus 
Repet.  Fidei  verse  Lutheran,  (ed.  Henke)  p.  53. 

4  Carlstadt  thought  the  words  used  by  our  Saviour  at  the  institution  of 
the  Eucharist  were  to  be  understood  deiKTiie&s  (i.  e.  that  Christ  in  pro¬ 
nouncing  them  pointed  to  his  body).  Comp.  Walch ,  vol.  xv.  p.  2422, 
ss.,  xx.  p.  186,  ss.  Gobel ,  M.,  an  essay  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1841, 
part  1  .* 

5  Z mingle* s  first  statements  about  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  were 
made  in  opposition  to  the  Romish  sacrifice  of  the  mass.  In  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  18th  Article  (Werke,  i.  257),  in  the  year  1523,  he  says:  “I 
called  the  eating  and  drinking  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  a  memorial 
of  the  passion  of  Christ ,  before  I  heard  of  the  name  of  Luther;  and  Luther 
called  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  a  testament ;  both  statements  are  cor¬ 
rect,  and  come  from  the  mouth  of  Christ.”  Comp,  his  letter,  Wyttenb.,  June 
15,  1523  (Opera,  p.  297).  But  Zwingle  does  not  recognize  the  element  of 
life-union  with  Christ.  This  is  especially  marked  in  his  treatise  De  Canone 
Missse  (Opera,  iii.  114,  sq.),  written  in  August  of  the  same  year,  where  he 
speaks  of  eating  the  body,  and  drinking  the  blood  of  Christ  (in  the  old 
ascetic  spirit  of  the  church) :  see  the  passages  in  Ebrard ,  ii.  107.  In  a  ser¬ 
mon  delivered  at  Berne,  in  1528,  he  speaks  of  being  fed  with  the  body  of 
Christ  for  the  resurrection  (Werke,  ii.  212  ;  Ebrard ,  ii.  110).  In  his  work 
entitled  :  Christenliche  Ynleitung,  1523  (Werke,  i.  563),  he  says,  that  the 

Eucharist  is  food  for  the  soul,  and  a  visible  sign  of  his  body  and  blood. _ 

The  first  document  of  Zwingle’s  works,  in  relation  to  the  Saxon  controversy 
about  the  sacrament,  is  the  letter  addressed  to  Matth.  Alber,  in  Reutlingen,  in 
the  Subsidium  de  Eucharistia,  which  forms  an  appendix  to  his  Comment,  de 
Yera  et  Falsa  Religione,  Opera,  iii.  p.  327  (1525),  and  is  to  be  compared 
with  his  treatise:  Klare  Underrichtung  vom  Nachtmahl  Christi  (1526); 
then  the  treatise :  Arnica  exegesis — -i.  e.,  Expositio  Eucharistiae  Negotii  ad 
M.  Luther  (1527) ;  the  work,  Dass  diese  Worte  Jesu  Christi  “  das  ist  myn- 
lychnam,  etc.,”  ewiglich  den  alten  eynigen  Sinn  haben  werdend,  etc.,  and  in 
several  other  controversial  writings  ( e .  g.,  that  wider  des  Doctor  Strussen 
Btichlin),  comp,  his  works,  Schuler’s  edit,  deutsche  Schriften,  ii.  2,  and  iii. 
Opp.  Lat.  iii.  1.  Comp.  Ebrard,  ii.  136.  The  following  passages  may  suf¬ 
fice  as  an  exposition  of  his  views. 

o.  In  respect  to  the  symbolical  or  metabolical  interpretation  of  the  words 
of  institution :  Subsidium  de  Eucharistia,  p.  343  (referring  to  Exodus  xii 
11):  Ita  igitur  vox  est ,  hoc  loco,  citra  omnem  parabolae  suspicionem  posita 

*  In  the  opinion  of  Zwngle  the  views  of  Carlstadt  were  correct  in  the  main  but  “  he 
did  not  show  himself  very  skillful  in  the  interpretation  of  the  word  tovto,  which  he  evi¬ 
dently  misunderstood,”  and  “on  the  whole  he  was  rather  unhappy  in  his  expressions.” 
See  bis  treatise :  Ueber  des  Dr.  Strussen  Biichlin,  in  Schuler’s  edit,  of  his  works,  ii.  1,  p.  479 


§  259.  The  Lord’s  Supper. 


313 


est.  .  .Quis  tam  tardus  erit,  ne  dicam  hebas  aut  pertinax,  ut  non  videat  est 
h.  1.  positum  esse  pro  signified  t ;  aut  symbolum  est,  aut  figura  est. .  .  .Quid 
nunc,  quaeso,  causae  est,  cur  eundem  tropum  nolint  quorundam  mentes  reci- 
pere  in  constitutione  novae  et  eternae  gratiarum  actionis  ?  cum  omnia  sic 
conveniunt,  sic  sibi  respondeant,  ut  qui  eis  credere  nolit,  disperdere  videatur, 
non  aedificare  velle.  (It  is  also  urged,  that  Christ  himself  was  still  with  his 
disciples,  and  could  not  give  them  to  eat,  either  the  body  that  was  yet  to  be 
crucified,  or  the  body  translated  to  heaven).  Compare  his  response  to 
Bugenhagen,  Opera,  p.  603,  and  Klare  Underrichtung  (Werke,  ii.  1),  p. 
456  :  “  Thereby  is  to  consider,  that  the  Scripture  is  everywhere  full  of  figur¬ 
ative  expressions,  called  in  Greek  tropos ,  which  are  to  be  understood  or  ex¬ 
plained  by  something  else.  As  when  Christ  says,  I  am  the  vine. . .  .ye  are 
the  branches. ...  item  John  i.  29,  This  is  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world. .  .  .John  vi.  35,  I  am  the  living  bread  (and  other 
like  passages).  Comp,  his  work,  Dass  diese  Worte  Jesu  Christi :  Dat  ist 
myn  Lychnam,  etc.,  ewiglich  den  alten  einigen  sinn  haben  werdend,  etc. 
(Werke,  ii.  p.  16  sq.)  At  the  Marburg  Conference  he  also  cited  the  pas¬ 
sage,  John  xix.  26  :  Woman,  see,  this  is  thy  son  1 — In  respect  to  the  gerafiokri, 
Zwingle  agrees  entirely  with  the  older  fathers.  The  bread  of  the  supper 
ceases  to  be  common  bread,  and  becomes  holy  (sacramental)  by  its  relation  to 
Christ.  See  his  Sermon  at  Berne  (Werke,  ii.  270)  :  “Just  as  a  flower  is 
more  noble  when  it  is  put  in  the  wreath  of  a  bride,  though  as  to  its  matter 
it  be  one  and  the  same  ;  and  as  one  is  otherwise  treated  who  takes  the  sig¬ 
net-ring  of  the  King,  than  if  he  had  taken  only  so  much  gold,  though  the 
matter  be  one  and  the  same ;  so  here,  too,  the  matter  of  the  bread  is  the 
same,  but  the  breaking  thereof  and  the  dignity  of  the  Lord's  Supptcr  give  it 
such  value ,  that  it  is  not  like  other  bread," 

b.  In  respect  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament :  Subsidium,  p.  332  :  Fide 
constat  salus,  non  corporali  manducatione ,  neque  ea  fide,  qua  te  fingas 
credere  quidquid  finxeris,  sed  qua  fidis  filio  Dei  pro  te  in  cruce  impenso, 
Klare  Underrichtung,  p.  441  :  Christ  means  by  “  eating  his  flesh  and  blood,” 
nothing  more  than  trust  in  him ,  who  has  given  his  flesh  and  blood  for  our 
life.  “  To  trust  in  him  is  salvation,  but  to  eat,  see,  touch  him,  is  not.” 
Ueber  des  Dr.  Strussen  Biichlin  (Werke,  ii.  1,  p.  481)  :  “  Our  controversy 
is  not  chiefly  about  the  question,  whether  the  body  of  Christ  is  in  the  sacra¬ 
ment ,  but,  whether  it  is  therein  eaten  bodily,  although  it  is  not  there,  nor 
can  be  according  to  God’s  word.”  (On  the  doctrine  of  the  body  of  Christ  in 
heaven,  in  relation  to  this  matter,  see  in  the  Christology  below.)  Zwingle 
speaks  of  a  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  to  faith,  in  his  Fidei  Ratio  ad  Carol. 
Imp. :  Credo,  quod  in  sacra  eucharistiae  h.  e.  gratiarum  actionis  coena,  verum 

Christi  corpus  adsit  fidei  contemplatione . Sed  quod  Christi  corpus  per  es- 

sentiam  et  realiter  h.  e.  corpus  ipsum  naturale  in  coena,  aut  adsit  aut  ore  den- 
tibusque  nostris  manducetur,  quemadmodum  Papistae  et  quidam,  qui  ad  ollas 
ACgyptiacas  respectant,  perhibent,  id  vero  non  tantum  negamus,  sed  errorem 
esse,  qui  verbo  Dei  adversatur,  constanter  adseveramus. — It  must  be  admit¬ 
ted  that  his  works  contain  but  few  passages  of  so  positive  a  character,  because 
the  principal  task  of  his  life  was  rather  to  oppose  the  false  and  erroneous 
notions  of  his  age  :  but  that  great  reformer  and  martyr  has  too  often  been 


314 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  oe  Symbolism. 


charged  with  that  cold  sobriety  which  is  more  befitting  only  a  critic.  “ The  ques¬ 
tion,  what  is  the  Lord's  Supper  in  relation  to  the  subjective  life  and  faith  of 
each  individual,  was  foreign  to  Z mingle' s  thoughts :  he  only  had  in  view 
the  relation  which  the  sacrament  in  the  church  as  a  whole  has  to  the  death 
of  Christ."  Ebrard ,  ii.  155. 

6  The  interpretation  adopted  by  (Ecolampadius,  it  is  usually  claimed,  differed 
only  grammatically  from  that  of  Zwingle.  He  retained  the  literal  mean¬ 
ing  of  egtl,  but  took  the  predicate  to  owga  gov  in  a  figurative  sense.  But 
this  difference  vanishes,  when  it  is  remembered,  that  Zwingle  was  also  willing 
instead  of  significat ,  to  say,  est  symbolum.  See  note  5,  and  Ebrard,  ii,  152. 
(Ecolampadius  first  unfolded  his  views  in  his  treatise:  De  Verborum  Domini : 
Hoc  est  corpus  meum,  juxta  vetustissimos  Auctores  Expositione  Liber,  1525, 
(see  Herzog,  Leben  Oekolamp.  i.  322  sq. ;  Ebrard,  iii.  162  ;  Dieckhoff,  514 
sq.),  in  which  he  avoids  direct  opposition  to  Luther,*  and  chiefly  contends 
against  the  mediaeval  scholasticism,  starting  with  Peter  the  Lombard,  and 
making  use  of  Augustine’s  definition  of  a  sacrament.  The  work  is  full  of 
subtle  remarks  on  the  tropical  element  in  the  Bible. — John  Brenz,  Erhard 
Schnepf  and  others  opposed  his  views  in  the  Syngramma  Suevicum,  (see  Hart¬ 
man  und  Jaeger ,  Joh.  Brentz,  Hamburg,  1842,  i.  141  sq. ;  Ebrard,  ii.  168 
sq.),  in  which  special  emphasis  was  laid  upon  the  Word,  which  was  said  to 
be  joined  with  the  bread  in  a  wonderful  manner  ;  and  it  was  thence  inferred 
that  there  was  a  real  (bodily?)  participation  of  the  body  of  Christ.  On  the 
interpretation  of  the  Syngramma,  however,  older  and*  more  recent  divines 
are  divided;  see  Hieckhoff 570,  582,  619;  and  Keim,  Die  Stellung  der 
Schwabischen  Kirche  zur  Zwinglisch-lutherischen  Spaltung  (in  Zeller’s 
Theol.  Jahrb.,  1854).  In  reply  (Ecolampadius  published  his  Antisyngram- 
ma  (De  Dignitate  Eucharistise,  sermones  duo.  1526.)  He  further  engaged 
in  a  controversy  with  Pirkheimer,  Billican,  and  Luther  himself.  Compare 
also  his  important  dialogue  :  Quid  de  eucharistia  veteres  turn  Grseci,  turn 
Latini  senserint,  Dialogus,  in  quo  Epistolse  Philippi  Melancthonis  et  J. 
(Ecolampadii  insertse,  auctore  Joan.  (Ecolampadio,  1530,  8. 

7  On  the  earlier  struggles  of  Luther,  in  which  he  was  tempted  to  adopt 
the  symbolical  interpretation,  see  his  letter  to  the  Christians  of  Strasburg 
(quoted  by  De  Wette,  ii.  p.  577).  The  first  of  Luther’s  writings  in  which  he 
enters  more  fully  into  the  question  of  the  significance  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  is 
his  Sermon  von  dem  hochwiirdigen  Sacrament,  1519,  on  which  see  Dieckr 
hoff,  p.  195  sq.  Kahnis  finds  in  it  “a  mystic  bridge  (?)  between  the  medi¬ 
aeval  and  the  reformed  views  of  Luther .”  He  here  says  “  Hence  to  partake 
of  this  sacrament  in  bread  and  wine,  only  means  to  participate  in  a  certain 
sign  of  this  fellowship  and  incorporation  with  Christ  and  all  believers.” 
Here,  too,  faith  is  expressly  demanded,  if  the  Supper  is  to  be  of  any 
avail.  But  in  his  treatise:  Yom  Anbeten  des  Sacraments,  an  die  bohmi- 
schen  Briider,  1523  (Walch,  xix.  p.  1593),  he  refuted  not  only  the  doctrines 


*  On  the  other  hand  he  does  not  generally  spare  the  views  of  the  opponents :  Barbariea 
plusquam  Scythica  vel  Diomedea  est  in  panis  involucro  cell  in  cenigmate  ipsam  hospitis 
canem  quaerero.  Rusticitas  est  et  stupor,  non  observere  nec  agnoscere,  in  quo  hospes 
bene  volenti  am  suam  doceat,  et  pro  spirituali  carnalem  requirere  coenam. 


§  259.  The  Lord's  Supper. 


315 


of  transnbstantiation,  and  of  tbe  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  but  also  the  theory  of 
a  mere  symbol,  as  well  as  that  of  a  purely  spiritual  participation.  Comp. 
Gieselcr ,  iv.,  p.  406.  After  the  two  last  theories  had  found  many  supporters 
among  the  adherents  of  the  Reformation,  Luther  zealously  opposed  (at  first 
in  letters  addressed  to  several  persons,  e.  g.  Reutlinger,  quoted  by  De  Wette , 
iii.  p.  *70),  those  “  who  will  now  teach  us,  that  in  the  sacrament  of  the  altar 
there  is  nothing  but  bread  and  wine,  and  not  the  very  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,”  and  directed  attention  to  the  differences  obtaining  among  them  as 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  words  of  our  Saviour.  Afterwards  he  combated 
the  “  Sacramentarians,  enthusiasts,”  etc.,  in  his  “  Sermon  von  dem  Sacrament 
des  Leibs  und  Bluts  Christi”  (published ^towards  the  close  of  the  year  1526), 
and  in  his  treatise  “Dassdie  Worte  Christi :  das  ist  mein  Leib,  etc.,  noch  fest 
stehen,  etc.,”  and  above  all  in  his  “  Grosses  Bekenntniss,”  published  1528 
(all  these  works  are  in  Watch ,  xx.).  Luther  rested  his  theory,  first  on  the 
literal  interpretation  of  the  words  of  our  Saviour,  which,  in  his  opinion,  is 
alone  admissible  :*  “For  we  are  not  such  fools  as  not  to  understand  those 
words.  If  they  are  not  clear,  I  do  not  know  how  to  talk  German.  Am  I 
not  to  comprehend  what  is  meant,  when  a  person  puts  a  loaf  of  bread  before 
me,  and  says :  Take,  eat,  this  is  a  loaf  of  bread?  and  again,  Take,  drink, 
this  is  a  glass  of  wine  ?  In  the  same  manner,  when  Christ  says  :  Take,  eat, 
this  is  my  body,  every  child  must  understand  that  he  speaks  of  that  which 
he  gives  to  his  disciples.”  (Watch,  xx.  p.  918.)  Thus,  at  the  Marburg 
colloquy,  Luther  wrote  upon  the  table  the  words,  Hoc  est  corpus  meum ,  and 
insisted  upon  it  so  strongly,  as  to  assert,  that  if  God  commanded  him  to  eat 
crab-apples  or  manure,  he  would  do  it.f  In  accordance  with  this  literal  in¬ 
terpretation,  Luther  taught  the  real  presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the  bread 
(consubstantiality),  though  he  defended  himself  against  the  charge  of  a  gross 
impanation  which  had  been  brought  forward  by  his  opponents  :  “We  poor 
sinners  are  not  so  foolish  as  "to  believe,  that  the  body  of  Christ  exists  in  the 
bread  in  the  same  visible  manner  in  which  bread  is  in  the  basket,  or  wine  in 
the  goblet,  as  the  enthusiasts  would  lay  to  our  charge,  in  order  to  deride  our 
foolishness.  That  the  fathers,  and  we  also,  sometimes  speak  in  this  way,  is 
simply  because  we  believe  that  Christ’s  body  is  present ;  otherwise  we  are 
quite  willing  that  any  one  should  say  :  Christ  is  in  the  bread,  or  is  the  very 
bread,  or  is  there ,  where  the  bread  is,  or  as  he  likes.  We  will  not  quarrel 
about  words  [?  ],  but  merely  insist  upon  keeping  to  the  literal  meaning — viz. 
that  it  is  not  simply  bread  of  which  we  partake  in  the  Lord’s  Supper,  but 
the  body  of  Christ.  (  Watch ,  1.  c.,  p.  1012.) — In  the  same  place  he  adverts 
to  the  fact,  that  God  has  other  means  by  which  he  can  enable  one  thing  to 
be  in  another  than  those  commonly  known  to  us,  such  as  wine  being  in  the 
barrel,  bread  in  the  basket,  money  in  the  pocket.  Thus  Levi  was  in  the 
loins  of  Abraham  (Hebr.  vii.  5) ;  heaven  and  earth  may  be  in  man’s  eye, 
etc.  Comp,  his  “Grosses  Bekenntniss,”  p.  1186.  A  thing  may  be  present 

*  In  bis  letter  addressed  to  the  Christians  of  Strasburg,  referred  to  above,  he  said, 
“  The  language  is  too  forcible  to  be  deprived  of  its  obvious  meaning  by  mere  reasoning.” 

f  He  tries  to  make  the  tropical  interpretation  ridiculous,  in  a  very  plump  fashion,  in 
his  treatise,  Dass  diese  Worte. . .  .noch  fest  stehen  (Walch,  xx.  590) :  e.  g.  what  he  saya 
of  the  cuckoo  and  ground  sparrow. 


316 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


localiter  (circumscriptive),  definitive,  repletive.  But  Christ  is  always  pre¬ 
sent  in  the  bread  in  a  way  that  is  above  reason,  and  which  can  only  he  per¬ 
ceived  by  faith  :  “  How  it  takes  place,  thou  canst  not  know,  but  thy  heart 
perceives  him,  and  by  faith  thou  art  convinced  of  his  presence.”  (Walch, 
xx.,  p.  922,  and  many  other  passages.)  And  yet  at  the  Marburg  Colloquy 
he  said,  that  the  body  was  in  the  bread,  as  the  sword  in  the  sheath,  etc. 
And  in  the  Cassel  Declaration,  he  even  says,  in  so  many  words :  “  This  is 
sure  in  our  opinion,  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  really  eaten  in  and  with  the 
bread  :  so  that  all  which  the  bread  does  and  suffers,  the  body  of  Christ 
does  and  suffers,  so  that  it  is  divided,  eaten,  bitten  with  the  teeth,  propter 
unionem  sacramentalem”  ( Planck ,  iii.  368  ;  Ebrard ,  ii.  365).  Compare,  how¬ 
ever,  the  Formula  Concordiae,  cited  below. 

8  On  the  colloquium  of  Marburg,  comp.  L.  J.  K.  Schmitt ,  das  Religions- 
gespriich  zu  Marburg,  1829,  and  Gieseler,  Church  History,  iv.  p.  133,  where 
the  literature  and  the  documents  are  given.  Ebrard ,  p.  286  sq.  Die  15 
Marb.  Artikel  nach  dem  Original  veroffentlicht,  von  H.  Heppe ,  Marb.,  1848. 
(Zeitschrift  f.  d.  Hist.  Theologie,  1848.) 

9  Luther  was  led,  logically,  to  the  theory  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ’s  body, 
which,  however,  he  did  not  propound  till  a  later  period  of  his  life.  Comp. 
Rettberg,  Occam  und  Luther  (in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1839,  part  1).  The 
idea  of  ubiquity,  however,  was  for  a  long  time  a  fluctuating  one.  If  the 
body  of  Christ  was  everywhere,  it  was  in  all  bread ;  and  so  nothing  was 
proved  for  the  specific  ubiquity  in  the  Lord’s  Supper.  Hence,  theologians 
were  afterwards  led  to  make  more  exact  definitions.  See  Ebrard ,  ii.  698, 
sq .,  and  the  Christology,  below.  Calixt  called  the  ubiquity  controversy,  in- 
faustum  certamen  ;  but  was  on  this  account  called  a  heretic  by  the  orthodox 
theologians  ;  see  Gass ,  p.  65. 

10  Conf.  Augsb.,  p.  12  :  De  coena  Domini  docent,  quod  corpus  et  sanguis 
Christi  vere  adsint  et  distribuantur  vescentibus  in  coena  Domini,  et  impro- 
bant  secus  docentes.  Comp.  Apol.  of  Conf.  p.  157.  Art.  Smalcald  p.  330  : 
De  sacramento  altaris  sentimus,  panem  et  vinum  in  coena.  esse  verum  corpus 
et  sanguinem  Christi,  et  non  tamtum  dari  et  sumi  a  piis ,  sed  etiam  ab  impiis 
christianis. — Cat.  Maj.  p.  553  :  Quid  est  itaque  sacramentum  altaris?  Est 
verum  corpus  et  sanguis  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  in  et  sub  pane  et  vino 
per  verbum  Christi  nobis  christianis  ad  manducandum  et  bibendum  insti- 
tutum  et  mandatum. — Form.  Cone.  p.  599  :  Credimus,  quod  in  coena  Domini 
corpus  et  sanguis  Christi  vere  et  substantialiter  sint  praesentia,  et  quod  una  - 
cum  pane  et  vino  vere  distribuantur  atque  sumantur.  Credimus,  verba  tes- 
tamenti  Christi  non  aliter  accipienda  esse,  quam  sicut  verba  ipsa  ad  litteram 
sonant,  ita,  ne  panis  absens  Christi  corpus  et  vinum  absentem  Christi  san¬ 
guinem  significent,  sed  ut  propter  sacramentalem  unionem  panis  et  vinum 
vere  sint  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi. — Comp.  p.  736  :  Docent,  quemadmodum 
in  Christo  duae  distinctae  et  non  mutatae  naturae  inseparabiliter  sunt  unitae, 
ita  in  sacra  coena  duas  diversas  substantias,  panem  videlicet  naturalem  et 
verum  naturale  corpus  Christi,  in  instituta  sacramenti  administratione  hie  in 
terris  simul  esse  praesentia.  Further  on  its  authors  protest  against  the  as¬ 
sertions  of  their  opponents,  p.  604  :  Prorsus  rejicimus  atque  damnamus 
capernaiticam  manducationem  corporis  Christi  quam  nobis  Sacramentarii 


§  259.  The  Lord's  Supper, 


317 


contra  suae  conscientiae  testimonium  post  tot  nostras  protestationes  malitiose 
affingunt,  ut  doctrinam  nostram  apud  auditores  suos  in  odium  adducant, 
quasi  videlicet  doceamus,  corpus  Christi,  dentibus  laniari  et  instar  alterius 
cujusdam  cibi  in  corpore  bumano  digeri.*  Credimus  autem  et  asserimus 
secundum  clara  verba  testamenti  Christi  verarn ,  sed  supernaturalem  mandu- 
cationem  corporis  Christi,  queraadmodum  etiam  vere,  super  naturaliter  tamen, 
sanguinem  Christi  bibi  docemus.  Haec  autem  humanis  sensibus  aut  ratione 
nemo  comprehendere  potest,  quare  in  hoc  negotio,  sicut  et  in  aliis  fidei  ar- 
ticulis,  intellectum  nostrum  in  obedientiam  Christi  captivare  oportet.  Hoc 
enim  mysterium  in  solo  Dei  verbo  revelatur  et  sola  fide  comprehenditur. 

11  See  above,  the  extracts  from  Zwingle  and  the  Reformed  Confessions. 

12  Prior  to  the  time  of  Calvin,  Martin  Bucer ,  Oswald  Myconius,  and 
others,  spoke  of  the  spiritual  participation  of  Christ’s  body,  which  is  present 
in  heaven,  an  idea  with  which  Zwingle  was  by  no  means  unfamiliar,  but 
which  is  less  prominently  brought  forward  in  his  writings  than  the  negative 
side  of  the  question  (see  note  5.)  Hence  the  Conf.  Tetrapolitana,  (1530) 
admits  “  a  true  partaking  of  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ”  in  terms  so 
definite,  that  it  scarcely  differs  from  the  Conf.  Augustana.  In  the  first  Con¬ 
fession  of  Basle  (1534),  in  the  composition  of  which  Calvin  had  no  share,  it  is 
also  said :  “  But  we  firmly  believe  that  Christ  himself  is  the  food  of  believ¬ 
ing  souls  unto  everlasting  life ,  and  that  our  souls,  by  means  of  true  faith  in 
the  crucified  Redeemer,  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  as  their  meat 
and  drink. . .  .Hence  we  confess  that  Christ,  in  his  holy  Supper,  is  present 
to  all  who  really  belfeve  in  him.” — On  the  other  hand,  it  is  also  very  signi¬ 
ficantly  added :  “  But  we  do  not  include  the  natural,  true,  and  essential 
body  of  Christ,  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  suffered  for  us,  and  is  ascended 
into  heaven,  in  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Lord  ?”  etc.  And  the  second  Con¬ 
fession  of  Basle  (Helv.  I.)  a.  d.  1536,  Art.  22,  concedes:  Coenam  mysticam 
esse,  in  qua  Dom.  corpus  et  sanguinem  suum,  i.  e .,  se  ipsum,  suis  vere  ad 
hoc  offerat,  ut  magis  magisque  in  illis  vivat  et  illi  in  ipso  :  non  quod  pani  et 
vino  corpus  Domini  et  sanguis  vel  naturaliter  uniantur  vel  hie  localiter  inclu- 
dantur  vel  ulla  hue  carnali  prsesentia  statuantur  ;  sed  quod  panis  et  vinum 
ex  institutione  Domini  symbola  sint,  quibus  ab  ipso  Domino  per  ecclesiiB 
ministerium  vera  corporis  et  sanguinis  ejus  communicatio  non  in  periturum 
ventris  cibum,  sed  in  aeternse  vitae  alimoniam  exhibeatur.  The  Lutheran 
church,  moreover,  does  not  exclude  the  idea  of  a  spiritual  reception  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  but  this  alone,  it  says,  is  not  enough :  comp. 
Form.  Concord.  744.  In  particular,  the  Lutheran  divines  say  that  the  sixth 
chapter  of  John’s  Gospel  refers  to  the  spiritualis  manducatio,  which,  however, 
they  distinguish  from  the  sacramental  (by  the  mouth). 

13  Calvin  was  in  complete  agreement  with  the  earlier  views  on  this  point 
(much  as  he  had  at  first  taken  offence  at  the  prosaic  interpretation  of 

*  Luther  said  that  the  body  of  Christ  could  not  be  treated  like  a  sausage,  for  example 
( Watch ,  xx.  989) ;  in  like  manner  at  the  Marburg  Colloquy,  that  we  do  not  eat  the  body 
of  Christ  like  “roasted  pork” — which  aroused  Zwingle1  s  indignation :  see  Ebrard ,  ii.  317 : 
“  many  things  are  so  sacred,  that  they  may  not  be  identified,  nor  even  contrasted,  with 
some  others.” 


318 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Zwingle,*  designating  it  as  a  profana  sententia),  but  also  developed  them 
more  fully;  comp.  Instit.  iv.  17.  10,  and  Henry ,  i.  p.  127,  ss.  While  Zwin¬ 
gle  lays  principal  stress  upon  the  historical  fact,  and  the  idea  of  a  festival 
of  commemoration,  Calvin  attaches  greater  importance  to  the  intimate  union 
of  believers  with  Christ ;  and  he  emphasizes  the  bodily  presence,  not  as 
having  entered  into  the  bread,  but  as  communicated  from  above,  in  a  won¬ 
derful  manner,  by  a  spiritual  agency,  viewing  it  as  a  pledge  of  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  of  our  bodies — an  idea  which  Zwingle  repels.  Thus,  in  his  opinion,  the 
Lord’s  Supper  is  not  only  an  act  to  commemorate  a  past  event,  but  also  the 
pledge  and  seal  of  something  that  is  present  and  future.  As  bread  and  wine 
sustain  our  earthly  body,  so  are  we  nourished  and  quickened  by  a  spiritual  recep¬ 
tion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  But  further  on  it  is  said  :  Cogitemus 
primum  spirituale  quiddam  esse  sacramentum,  quo  Dom.  non  ventres  nos¬ 
tros,  sed  animas  pascere  voluit.  Ac  Christum  in  eo  quseramus,  non  nostro 
corpore,  nec  ut  sensibus  carnis  nostrse  comprehendi  potest,  sed  sic,  ut  anima 
velut  prsesentem  sibi  datum  et  exhibitum  agnoscat.  Denique  ipsum  spiri- 
tualiter  obtinere  satis  habemus.  Compare  with  this  his  treatise  :  Be  Coena, 
quoted  by  Henry ,  i.  p.  261,  ss.,  and  the  Conf.  Fidei  de  Eucharistia,  quam 
obtulerunt  Farellus,  Calvinus  et  Viretus,  cui  subscripserunt  Bucerus  et 
Capito,  1537,  quoted  by  Henry ,  i.  Appendix  No.  5.  In  the  earlier  part  of 
this  Conf.  Calvin  appears  to  express  views  allied  to  those  of  Luther  :  Yitam 
spiritualem,  quam  nobis  Christus  largitur,  non  in  eo  duntaxat  sitam  esse  con- 
fitemur,  quod  spiritu  suo  nos  vivificat,  sed  quod  spiritus  etiam  sui  virtute 
carnis  suae  vivificse  nos  facit  participes,  qua  participatione  in  vitam  aeternam 
pascamur.  Itaque  cum  de  communione,  quam  cum  Christo  fideles  habent, 
loquimur,  non  minas  carni  et  sanguini  ejus  communicare  ipsos  intelligimus 
quam  spiritui ,  ut  ita  totum  Christum  possideant,  etc.  On  the  other  side  he 
pronounces,  in  terms  equally  strong,  in  favor  of  the  symbolical  interpreta¬ 
tion  :  Caeterum  istis  nihil  repugnat,  quod  Dominus  noster  in  ccelum  sublatus 
localem  corporis  sui  praesentiam  nobis  abstulit,  quae  hie  minime  exigitur. 
Nam  utcunque  nos  in  hac  mortalitate  peregrinantes  in  eodem  loco  cum  ipso 
non  includimur  et  continemur,  nullis  tamen  finibus  limitata  est  ejus  spiritus 
efficacia,  quin  vere  copulare  et  in  unum  colligere  possit,  quae  locorum  spatiis 
sunt  disjuncta.  Ergo  spiritum  ejus  vinculum  esse  nostrae  cum  ipso  partici¬ 
pation^  agnoscimus,  sed  ita,  ut  nos  ille  carnis  et  sanguinis  Domini  substantia 
vere  ad  immortalitatem  pascat  et  eorum  participatione  vivificet.  Hanc 
autem  carnis  et  sanguinis  sui  communionem  Christus  sub  panis  et  vini  sym- 
bolis  in  sacrosancta  sua  coena  offert  et  exhibet  omnibus,  qui  earn  rite  cele¬ 
brant  juxta  legitimum  ejus  institutum. — JBucer  and  Capito  indeed  protested 
against  the  appellation  nuda  et  inania  symbola,  as  applied  to  the  bread  and 
wine,  and  denounced  such  usage  as  an  error  which  the  Church  ought  to 
reject;  but  had  Zwingle  ever  made  use  of  the  expression  “  nuda  et  inania 
symbola?” — Thus  Calvin  (Instit.  iv.  17,  32),  also  says  :  Fidem  vero  nos  ista, 
quam  enarravimus,  corporis  participatione  non  minus  laute  affluenterque 

*  In  a  letter  addressod  to  Yiret  (quoted  by  Schlosser ,  Peter  Martyr,  p.  451,  note.)  On 
the  question  whether  Calvin,  as  Planck  supposes,  held  at  first  the  opinion  of  Luther,  but 
abandoned  it  afterwards,  see  Bretschneider  in  Reformations- Almanach  iii.,  p.  81,  and  Henry , 
L,  p.  262. 


259.  The  Lord's  Supper. 


319 


pascimus,  quam  qui  ipsum  Christum  e  coelo  detrahunt.  Ingenue  interea 
confiteor,  mixturam  carnis  Christi  cum  anima  nostra  vel  transfusionem ,  qua¬ 
ds  ab  ipsis  docetur,  me  repudiare,  quia  nobis  sufficit,  Christum  e  carnis  sum 
substantia  vitam  in  animas  nostras  spirare,  imo  propriam  in  nobis  vitam  dif- 
f under e ,  quamvis  in  nos  non  ingrediatur  ipsa  Christi  caro.  Comp,  also 
§  10  :  Nos  vero  talem  Christi  prsesentiam  in  coena  statuere  oportet,  quae  nee 
panis  elernenta  ipsum  affigat ,  nec  in  panem  includat,  nec  ullo  modo  circum- 
scribat,  etc. .  .  .  Caeterum  his  absurditatibus  sublatis,  quicquid  ad  exprimen- 
dam  veram  substantial emque  corporis  et  sanguinis  Domini  communicationem, 
quae  sub  sacris  coenae  symbolis  fidelibus  exhibetur,  facere  potest,  libenter 
recipio  :  atque  ut  non  imaginations  duntaxat  aut  mentis  intelligentia  perci- 
pere,  sed  ut  re  ipsa  frui  in  alimentum  vitae  aeternae  intelligantur.  Against 
the  Hamburg  preacher,  Wcstphal  (1552),  Calvin  defended  himself  in  the 
most  definite  way  from  the  charge  of  holding  to  a  merely  spiritual  presence  ; 
but  he  also  equally  denied  a  local  presence  of  Christ’s  body,  and  limited  his 
statements  to  a  dynamical.  Defensio  II.  p.  68-72  :  Ita  Christum  corpore 
absentem  doceo  nihilominus  nontantum  divina  sua  virtute,  quae  ubique  diffusa 
est,  nobis  adesse,  sed  etiam  facere,  ut  nobis  vivifica  sit  sua  caro. . . .  Reclamat  hie 
Westphalus,  me  spiritus  preesentiam  opponere  carnis prcesentice  ;  sed  quatenus 
id  faciam,  ex  eodem  loco  clare  patere  malevolentia  excaecatus  non  inspicit. 
Neque  enim  simpliciter  spiritu  suo  Christus  in  nobis  habitare  trado,  sed  ita 
nos  ad  se  attollere,  ut  vivificam  carnis  sues  vigorem  in  nos  transfundat. 

Slightly  as  Zwingle  and  Calvin  differed  respecting  the  Lord’s  Supper,  the 
divines  at  Zurich  at  first  looked  with  some  mistrust  upon  the  theory 
of  the  latter  ( Lavater ,  Histor.  Sacram.  p.  98.)  But  the  Agreement 
between  the  churches  of  Zurich  and  Geneva  was  set  forth  in  the  Consensus 
Tigurensis,  where  it  is  said  distinctly,  No.  21:  Tollenda  est  quaelibet  localis 
praesentiae  imaginatio.  Nam  quum  signa  hie  in  mundo  sint,  oculis  cernan- 
tur,  palpentur  manibus :  Christus,  quatenus  homo  est,  non  alibi  quam  in 
coelo,  nec  aliter  quam  mente  et  fidei  intelligentia  quaerendus  est.  Quare 
perverso  et  impia  superstitio  est ,  ipsum  sub  dementis  hujus  mundi  includere. 
22  :  Proinde,  qui  in  solennibus  coenae  verbis  ;  Hoc  est  corp.  m.  etc.,  praecise 
literalem,  ut  loquuntur,  sensum  urgent,  eos  tamquam  praeposteros  interpretes 
repudiamus.  Nam  extra  controversiam  ponimus,  figurate  accipiendia  esse,  ut 
esse  panis  et  vinum  dicantur  id  quod  significant. — Comp,  also  Conf.  Gall.  Art. 
36.  Helv.  II.  c.  21.  Belgica  35.  Anglica  34.  Scot.  21.  In  some  Cal- 
vinistic  symbols  the  positive  element  is  prominently  brought  forward,  but 
something  is  always  added  in  order  to  prevent  any  close  approach  to  the 
Lutheran  view.  Thus  it  is  said  in  the  Catechism  of  Heidelberg,  Qu.  76  : 
“  What  do  ye  understand  by  eating  the  crucified  body  of  Christ,  and  drink- 
the  blood  which  he  shed  on  the  cross  ?  Answ.  By  this  we  understand,  not 
only  that  we  accept  with  a  believing  heart  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ, 
but  also ,  that  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  dwells  at  the  same 
time  in  Christ  and  in  ourselves,  we  are  so  intimately  united  to  his  blessed 
body,  that  although  he  be  in  heaven  and  we  on  earth ,  we  are  flesh  of  his 
flesh,  and  bone  of  his  bone,  and  eternally  live,  and  are  governed  by  one 
spirit  (as  the  members  of  our  body  are  governed  by  one  soul.”) — Confess. 
Sigism.  c.  8 :. . . .“  Therefore  we  simply  abide  by  the  words  pronounced  by 


320 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Christ  at  the  institution  of  this  ordinance — viz.  that  the  bread  is  his  true 
body,  and  the  wine  his  true  blood,  sacramentally,  i.  e.  in  the  manner  in  which 
God  ordained  and  instituted  the  holy  sacraments  of  both  the  Old  and  the  New 
Test.,  that  they  should  be  visible  and  true  signs  of  the  invisible  grace  com¬ 
municated  by  them  ;  and  in  the  manner  in  which  our  Lord  himself  signifies, 
that  the  holy  Eucharist  is  a  sign  of  the  New  Testament  (covenant),  hut  not 
a  mere  sign ,  nor  an  empty  one ,  and  instituted  for  the  commemoration  of 
Christ’s  death. .  .  .that  thus  it  might  he  a  memorial  of  consolation ,  a  memo¬ 
rial  of  gratitude ,  and  a  memorial  of  love?  9  :  “  And  inasmuch  as  faith  is, 
as  it  were,  the  mouth  by  which  wTe  receive  the  crucified  body  of  Christ,  and 
the  blood  shed  for  us,  his  electoral  grace  holdeth  with  steadfastness,  that  this 
sacrament  does  not  help  unbelievers ,  or  those  who  do  not  repent ,  and  that 
they  do  not  participate  in  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ .”  For  further 
passages  see  Winer ,  p.  138,  ss.  SchenJcel ,  i.  561,  sq.  Ebrard ,  ii.  402,  sq. 
The  idea  of  an  elevation  of  the  soul  to  heaven  is  from  a  Lasco  /  see  Ebrard, 
ii.  535. 

14  Formula  Concordiae,  vii.,  p.  732  :  Non  propter  alicuius  aut  perso¬ 
nam  aut  incredulitatem  verbum  Dei  (quo  Coena  Domini  instituta  est  et 
propter  quod  rationem  Sacramenti  habet)  irritum  et  vanum  fieri  potest. 
Quia  Christus  non  dixit :  Si  credideritis  aut  digni  fueritis,  turn  in  Coena 
sacra  corpus  et  sanguinem  meum  prsesentia  habebitis,  sed  potius  ait :  Acci- 
pite,  edite  et  bibite,  hoc  est  corpus  meum,  etc. . .  .Verba  Christi  hoc  volunt : 
Sive  dignus  sive  indignus  sis,  habes  hie  in  Coena  Christi  corpus  et  sanguinem. 
Comp.  743  :  Quod  autem  non  tantum  pii  et  credentes  in  Christum,  verum 
etiam  indigni,  impii,  hypocritse  (v.  g.  Judas),  et  hujus  farinse  homines. . . . 
etiam  verum  corpus  et  verum  sanguinem  Christi  ore  in  Sacramento  su- 
mant,  et  grande  scelus  indigne  edendo  et  bibendo  in  corpus  et  sanguinem 
Christi  admittant,  id  D.  Paulus  expresse  docet,  etc. 

16  By  doing  violence  to  the  rules  of  grammar  (viz.  by  inverting  the  order 
of  subject  and  predicate)  Schwen/cfeld  and  Krautwald  made  out  this  sense : 
My  body  which  is  given  for  you,  is  the  very  thing  which  I  distribute  among 
you — viz.  bread,  a  real  food,  and  the  efficacious  means  of  preserving  eternal 
life.  As  analogous  instances  they  adduced  :  the  seed  is  the  Word  of  God  ; 
the  field  is  the  world  ;  the  rock  was  Christ.  See  Das  Buch  vom  Christen- 
menschen  (Werke,  Bd.  i.  p.  898).  SchenJcel ,  i.  556  ;  Planch ,  v.,  i.,  p.  90. 
Schwenhfeld  also  insisted  upon  the  mystical  aspect  of  the  Lord’s  Supper : 
“  From  the  fountain  of  God’s  love  and  sweetness,  we  eat  the  body  of  Christ 
and  drink  his  blood,  to  strengthen  the  conscience,  quicken  the  heart,  and  for 
the  increase  of  the  inner  man  in  all  the  spiritual  riches  of  God.”  “  The  bread 
of  eternal  life  must  be  well  masticated  (i.  e.  thoroughly  contemplated)  by  all 
who  eat  it.  They  eat  it,  and  have  eaten  thereof,  who  have  grasped  this  act 
of  the  New  Testament  and  of  our  salvation  with  true  faith,  and  who  know, 
that  they  are  not  only  redeemed  by  this  same  body  of  Christ  which  was 
broken  for  us,  but  that  it  also  has  other  food  and  nourishment,  and  power  to 
everlasting  life.”  (Werke,  i.  911  ;  in  Schenkel,  ubi  supra).  Comp.  Erb- 
ham's  Protest.  Secten  im  Zeitalter  der  Reform.,  468. 

16  Cat.  Rac.  qu.  334  :  (Coena  Domini)  est  Christi  institutum,  ut  fideles 
ipsius  panem  frangant  et  comedant  et  ex  calice  bibant,  mortis  ipsius  annunci- 


§  259.  The  Lord’s  Supper. 


321 


andse  causa.  Quod  permanere  in  adventum  ipsius  oportet.  Ib.  qu.  335  : 
(Annunciare  mortem  Domini)  est  publi  ceet  sacrosancte  Christo  gratias  agere, 
quod  is  pro  ineflfabili  sua  erga  nos  caritate  corpus  suum  torqueri  et  quodam- 
modo  frangi  et  sanguinem  suum  fundi  passus  sit,  et  hoc  ipsius  beneficium  lau- 
dibus  tollere  et  celebrare.  Ib.  qu.  337  :  Nonne  alia  causa,  ob  quam  coenam 
instituit  Dom.,  superest  ?  Nulla  prorsus,  etsi  homines  multas  excogitarint, 
cum  alii  dicant  esse  sacrificium  pro  vivis  et  mortuis,  alii  usu  ipsius  se  conse- 
qui  peccatorum  remissionem  et  firmare  fidem  sperant,  et  quod  eis  mortem 
Domini  in  mentem  revocet,  affirmant.  Comp.  Socinus ,  De  Coena  Domini,  p. 
753,  6,  where  the  effects  commonly  supposed  to  be  produced  by  the  sacra¬ 
ment  are  ascribed  to  the  word,  with  which  the  ceremony  is  only  externally 
connected. —  Ostorodt ,  Underichtung,  says,  p.  230,  that  the  Lord’s  Supper  is 
only  a  ceremony,  and  is  called  a  sacrament  without  any  reason :  see  Fock's 
Socinianismus,  p.  573  sq.  The  Socinians  regarded  the  controversy  between 
the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  as  mere  logomachy,  and  sharply  criticised 
their  entire  forgetfulness  of  Christian  love  in  strife  about  such  a  matter. 
They  avowed  their  agreement  with  Zwingle.  See  Fock ,  p.  5 7 7. -—Concern¬ 
ing  the  views  of  the  Arminians,  see  Confess.  Remonstrant,  23,  4,  and  Lim- 
borch ,  Theol.  Christ,  v.  71,  9  ss.  (where  he  combats  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper  as  held  by  orthodox  Calvinists).  The  opinions  of  the  Mennonites  on 
this  point  will  be  found  in  Hies,  Conf.,  Art.  34  (Winer,  p.  135). 

17  Comp.  §  258,  note  7. 

18  [Westminster  Confession,  chap.  xxix. :  Our  Lord  Jesus,  in  the  night 
wherein  he  was  betrayed,  instituted  the  sacrament  of  his  body  and  blood, 
called  the  Lord’s  Supper,  to  be  observed  in  his  church,  unto  the  end  of  the 
world  ;  for  the  perpetual  remembrance  of  the  sacrifice  of  himself  in  his  death, 
the  sealing  all  benefits  thereof  unto  true  believers,  their  spiritual  nourish¬ 
ment  and  growth  in  him,  their  further  engagement  in,  and  to  all  duties  which 
they  owe  unto  him  ;  and  to  be  a  bond  and  pledge  of  their  communion  with 
him,  and  with  each  other,  as  members  of  his  mystical  body.  2.  In  this  sacra¬ 
ment  Christ  is  not  offered  up  to  his  Father,  nor  any  real  sacrifice  made  at  all  for 
remission  of  sins  of  the  quick  or  dead,  but  only  a  commemoration  of  that  once 
offering  up  of  himself,  by  himself,  upon  the  cross,  once  for  all,  and  a  spiritual 
oblation  of  all  possible  praise  unto  God  for  the  same  ;  so  that  the  popish  sac¬ 
rifice  of  the  mass,  as  they  call  it,  is  most  abominably  injurious  to  Christ’s  one 
only  sacrifice,  the  alone  propitiation  for  all  the  sins  of  the  elect.  5.  The 
outward  elements  in  this  sacrament,  duly  set  apart  to  the  uses  ordained  by 
Christ,  have  such  relation  to  him  crucified,  as  that  truly,  yet  sacramentally 
only,  they  are  sometimes  called  by  the  name  of  the  things  they  represent,  to 
wit,  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  albeit,  in  substance  and  nature,  they  still 
remain  truly,  and  only,  bread  and  wine,  as  they  were  before.  7.  Worthy 
receivers,  outwardly  partaking  of  the  visible  elements  in  this  sacrament,  do 
then  also  inwardly  by  faith,  really  and  indeed,  yet  not  carnally  and  corpo¬ 
rally,  but  spiritually,  receive  and  feed  upon  Christ  crucified,  and  all  benefits 
of  his  death :  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  being  then  not  corporally  nor 
carnally  in,  with,  or  under  the  bread  and  wine ;  yet  as  really,  but  spiritually, 
present  to  the  faith  of  believers  in  that  ordinance,  as  the  elements  themselves 
are,  to  their  outward  senses.  8.  Although  ignorant  and  wicked  men  receive 


322 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


the  outward  elements  in  this  sacrament,  yet  they  receive  not  the  thing 
signified  thereby  ;  but  by  their  unworthy  coming  thereunto  are  guilty -of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  to  their  own  damnation.] 

19  Article  xxviii.  of  XXXIX  Articles.  Of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Supper 
of  the  Lord  is  not  only  a  sign  of  the  love  that  Christians  ought  to  have  among 
themselves,  one  to  another :  but  rather  is  a  Sacrament  of  our  Redemption  by 
Christ’s  death ;  insomuch  that  to  such  as  rightly,  worthily,  and  with  faith, 
receive  the  same,  the  bread  which  we  break  is  a  partaking  of  the  body  of 
Christ ;  and  likewise  the  Cup  of  Blessing  is  a  partaking  of  the  Blood  of 
Christ. — Transubstantiation  (or  the  change  of  the  substance  of  bread  and 
wine)  in  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  can  not  be  proved  by  Holy  Writ ;  but  is 
repugnant  to  the  plain  words  of  Scripture,  overthroweth  the  nature  of  a  sac¬ 
rament,  and  hath  given  occasion  to  many  superstitions. — The  Body  of  Christ 
is  given,  taken,  and  eaten,  in  the  Supper,  only  after  an  heavenly  and  spirit¬ 
ual  manner.  And  the  mean  whereby  the  Body  of  Christ  is  received  and 
eaten  in  the  Supper  is  Faith. — The  Sacrament  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  was  not 
by  Christ’s  ordinance  reserved,  carried  about,  lifted  up,  or  worshipped. — 
Article  xxix.  Of  the  Wicked  which  eat  not  the  Body  of  Christ  in  the  use 
of  the  Lord's  Supper .  The  Wicked,  and  such  as  be  void  of  a  lively  faith, 
although  they  do  carnally  and  visibly  press  with  their  teeth  (as  St.  Augustine 
saith)  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  yet  in  no  wise  are 
they  partakers  of  Christ :  but  rather  to  their  condemnation,  do  eat  and  drink, 
the  sign  or  Sacrament  of  so  great  a  thing.  [The  quotation  from  Augustine 
is  an  interpolation  ;  the  words  are  not  found  in  any  of  the  20  MSS.  of  Augus¬ 
tine  collated  for  the  Louvain  and  Paris  edition.  See  Porson's  Letters  to 
Travis,  p.  229.]  Article  xxx.  Of  both  kinds. — The  Cup  of  the  Lord  is 
not  to  be  denied  to  the  lay-people  :  for  both  the  parts  of  the  Lord’s  Sacra¬ 
ment,  by  Christ’s  ordinance  and  commandment,  ought  to  be  ministered  to  all 
Christian  men  alike. — Article  xxxi.  Of  the  One  Oblation  of  Christ  finished 
upon  the  Cross.  The  Offering  of  Christ  once  made  is  that  perfect  redemption, 
propitiation,  and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  both  original 
and  actual ;  and  there  is  none  other  satisfaction  for  sin,  but  that  alone. 
Wherefore  the  sacrifices  of  masses,  in  the  which  it  was  commonly  said,  that 
the  Priest  did  offer  Christ  for  the  quick  and  the  dead,  to  have  remission  of  pain 
or  guilt,  were  blasphemous  fables,  and  dangerous  deceits. — On  the  general 
subject  of  the  position  of  the  English  Church  in  respect  to  the  doctrine,  see 
Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  81 :  The  testimony  of  writers  of  the  later  English 
Church  to  the  Doctrines  of  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  with  an  Historical 
Account  of  the  Changes  made  in  the  Liturgy  as  the  Expression  of  that  Doc¬ 
trine.  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  pp.  402-465.  Pusey  on  the  Real  Presence, 
ubi  supra.  W.  Goode ,  Nature  of  Christ’s  Presence  in  the  Eucharist,  2,  8vo., 
1856.  John  Johnson,  The  Unbloody  Sacrifice  and  Altar  Unveiled,  1st  ed., 
1714,  2nd  ed.,  1724,  in  Oxford  Library  of  Anglo-Catholic  Divines,  2  vols., 
1847.  Rev..  John  Patrick ,  Full  View  of  Doctrine  and  Practice  of  the  Ancient 
Church  relating  .to  the  Eucharist,  Lond.,  1638,  reprinted  in  Gibson's  Pre¬ 
servative.] 

The  doctrinal  differences  of.  the  various  denominations  are  closely  connected  with  tnen 


§  260.  The  Lord’s  Supper, 


323 


respective  modes  of  celebrating  this  ordinance.  The  principal  difference  is  this,  that  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  persisted  in  withholding  the  cup  from  the  laity,  while  all  other 
parties,  inclusive  of  the  Greek  Church,  demanded  that  it  should  be  restored  to  them. 
(See  Note  3,  and  the  passages  quoted  from  their  symbolical  writings  by  Winer ,  p.  145- 
147.)  On  the  usage  about  the  host  (in  the  Roman  Catholic  and  Lutheran  Churches,  partly 
also  in  the  Reformed  Church),  and  as  to  the  bread  (in  the  Greek  and  Reformed  Churches) ; 
on  the  breaking  of  the  bread  in  the  Reformed  Church,  and  the  reception  with  the  hand 
instead  of  the  mouth  ;  on  the  elevation  of  the  host ;  on  the  manner  in  which  the  congrega¬ 
tion  receive  the  sacrament  (whether  they  go  to  the  table,  or  remain  in  their  seats) ;  on  the 
modes  and  formulas  of  distribution ;  on  private  communion,  auricular  or  general  confession, 
etc.,  comp,  the  works  on  archaeology  and  those  on  liturgies.  Ebrard ,  Abendmahl,  ii.  794- 
796. — The  strict  Lutherans  opposed  the  breaking  of  the  bread,  for  the  following,  among 
other  reasons,  in  the  Consensus  Repetitus  Fidei  Verae  Luth.  punct.  72  (in  Henke,  p.  56): 
Profitemur  et  docemus,  panis  fractionem  et  vini  effusionem  in  ora  fidelium  non  fuisse  fac- 
tam  a  Christo  ob  representation em  mortis  dominicae,  sed  ob  distributionem  inter  commu- 
nicantes,  adeoque  dproiclaoiav  non  fuisse  formalem  seu  essentialem  ritum  hujus  sacramenti, 
sed  tantum  ministerialem,  qui  facerat  ad  meliorem  distributionem. — It  was  a  fundamental 
principle  of  Protestantism,  that  the  participation  in  the  Lord’s  Supper  should  be  a  commu¬ 
nion  shared  in  common :  Luther  also  at  first  adopted  this  view  (see  his  Letters,  ed.  De 
Wette ,  iv.  p.  160),  and  sanctioned  even  the  communionvof  the  sick  only  conditionally  (ibid, 
v.,  p.  227).  Differences  of  usages  were  introduced  into  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
Churches  only  at  a  later  period. 


§  260. 

INTERNAL  FLUCTUATIONS  AND  FURTHER  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT. 

Though  Preexisting  differences  of  opinion  rendered  impossible  an  im¬ 
mediate  union  between  the  various  sections  of  the  Protestant  Church, 
there  were  not  wanting  those  who,  on  the  one  hand,  may  he  styled 
Crypto-Calvinists /  and,  on  the  other,  Crypto-Lutlierans .2  But  the 
existence  of  these  parties  gave  rise  to  increased  efforts  on  the  part 
of  the  orthodox  theologians  in  either  church  to  establish  a  more  pre¬ 
cise  definition  of  their  distinguishing  doctrines,  and  to  secure  them 
against  corruption  and  misinterpretation.  The  schoolmen  made  a 
three-fold  distinction  in  the  Lord’s  Supper — viz.  between  matter , 
form,  and  end,  or  object,  which  were  again  subdivided  according  to 
various  categories.3  The  mystics,  abiding  by  the  mysterious  import 
of  the  doctrine,  took  no  part  in  the  ecclesiastical  controversies  ;4 
some  of  them  even  showed  that  each  of  the  principal  sections  of  the 
church  rests  on  a  religious  idea,  the  living  appropriation  of  which  is, 
in  their  opinion,  the  principal  thing  in  this  ordinance,  whatever 
meaning  may  be  attached  to  it.&  Among  Roman  Catholic  writers, 
Bossuet  endeavoured  to  defend,  on  philosophical  grounds,  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  transubstantiation  and  of  the  mass,6  while  the  Jansenists  and 
Roman  Catholic  Mystics  rigidly  retained  the  doctrine  of  the  church. 
But  they  directed  their  attention  not  so  much  to  dialectical  argu¬ 
ments  for  the  mere  notion,  as  to  the  mysterious  effects  which  this 
sacrament  produces  upon  the  internal  man.7 


324 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


1  Compare  above,  §  215,  note  7,  Ebrard ,  p.  686  sq. 

2  Marbach  of  Strasburg ,  and  Simon  Sulzer  of  Basle.  The  latter  was  op¬ 
posed  by  H.  Erzberger.  Comp.  Hagenbach ,  Geschichte  der  Basler  Confess, 
p.  87  ss.  The  very  remarkable  creeds  of  Sulzer  and  Erzberger  are  there 
given,  Appendix  C,  p.  232,  and  Appendix  B,  pt  218  ss.  Comp.  Hundeshagen 
Conflicte,  p.  147  sq. ;  Ebrard ,  ii.  484. 

3  The  matter  is  (a)  terrestris  (the  elements  bread  and  wine) ;  (b)  coelestis, 
which  is  subdivided  into  a.  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi,  (3.  gratia  divina ;  2. 
The  form  is  (a)  interna  (unio  sacramentalis),  (b)  externa,  which  is  composed 
of  a.  consecratio,  (3.  distributio,  y.  sumptio;  3.  Finis  (fructus)  est  collatio  et 
obsignatio  gratise  divinse.  This  end  is  subdivided  into  (a)  finis  ultimus 
(salus  seterna) ;  (b)  intermedius,  (a)  recordatio  et  commemoratio  mortis 
Christi,  quae  fide  peragitur,  ((3)  obsignatio  promissionis  de  remissione  pecca- 
torum  et  fidei  confirmatio,  (y)  insitio  nostra  in  Christum  et  spiritualis  nutri- 
tio  ad  vitam,  (d)  dilectio  mutua  communicantium.  See  Hase,  Hutterus  Re- 
divivus,  pp.  314,  315.  Among  the  Calvinistic  theologians  see  Heidegger , 
Loci,  xxv.  p.  13  ss. 

4  Thus  Phil .  Paracelsus ,  Sagac.  Lib.  i,  c.  5,  §  10,  comp.  ii.  2,  (quoted  by 
Preu ,  Theol.  des  Paracelsus,  p.  1) ;  he  there  speaks  rather  of  an  internal 
(mystical)  communion,  than  of  a  real  participation  of  the  elements.  “  The 
regenerate  must  be  nourished  by  Christ,  and  not  only  obtain  the  art  and 
wisdom  of  nature,  as  we  gather  pears  from  the  trees,  but  receive  wisdom 
from  him  who  has  sent  it.  Respecting  Christ,  it  is  said,  we  must  eat  his  flesh, 
and  drink  his  blood,  that  is,  we  must  be  born  of  him ;  he  is  the  first  born, 
but  we  fill  up  the  number.”  Comp.  Schwenkfeld ,  above. 

6  Thus  Poiret  in  his  treatise  :  Gewissensruhe.  See  Hagenbach ,  Vorlesun- 
gen,  vol.  iv.,  p.  326. 

6  Exposition  de  la  Doctrine  Catholique,  c.  10  ss.  In  his  opinion,  there  is 
no  medium  between  the  view  of  infidels  who  reject  everything,  and  the  or¬ 
thodox  doctrine  of  the  Church.  Every  other  view  is  inconsistent  with  itself ; 
God  has  suffered  the  Protestants  to  fall  into  such  inconsistencies,  in  order  to 
facilitate  their  return  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  The  figurative  inter¬ 
pretation,  however,  may  be  admitted  in  a  certain  sense  (as  implied  in  the 
real),  p.  140  :  “  Nevertheless  the  truth  which  the  Eucharist*  contains  in  its 
internal  aspect,  does  not  prevent  its  being  considered  a  sign  of  the  external 
and  tangible  ;  but  it  is  a  sign  of  that  sort  which,  so  far  from  excluding  the 
reality,  necessarily  implies  it.” 

7  Concerning  the  views  of  the  Jansenists,  comp.  §  228,  note  3.  On  the 
controversy  respecting  the  Lord’s  Supper,  between  Peter  Nicole  and  Anton 
Arnauld ,  on  the  one  side,  and  Claude,  a  Calvinistic  minister,  on  the  other 
see  Schrockh ,  vii.  p.  367.  Among  the  mystics  similar  opinions  obtained  to 
those  of  the  preceding  period.  Thus  Francis  of  Sales  said,  Introd.  ii.  14  : 
Hoc  (sacramentum)  religionis  christianse  centrum  est  devotionis  cor,  pietatis 
anima,  mysterium  ineffabile,  quodque  divinse  charitatis  abyssum  in  se  com- 
prehendit,  ac  per  quod  se  Deus  ipse  realiter  nobis  applicans  gratias  et  dona 
sua  nobis  magnifice  communicat. — Comp.  Bonce  Tract.  Ascet.  de  Sacrificio 
Missse  (Opp.  p.  177  ss.).  Fenelon ,  GHuvres  Spirit.,  i.  p.  414. 


§  260.  The  Lord’s  Supper. 


325 


As  regards  the  other  Roman  Catholic  Sacraments  (respecting  baptism,  see  §  270),  their 
fundamental  principles  must  be  considered  by  Protestant  theologians  in  other  parts  of  their 
works  on  systematic  theology  ;  thus  Penance  is  treated  of  in  connection  with  the  economy 
of  Redemption,  though  some  of  the  earlier  Lutheran  divines  placed  it  after  the  chapters  on 
Baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  (e.  g.  Hollaz ,  p.  1141);  the  sacrament  of  Holy  Orders ,  in 
connection  with  the  doctrine  concerning  the  church ;  that  of  Matrimony  forms  a  part  of 
ethics  and  the  Canon  Law,  though  some,  e.  g.  Gerhard ,  still  assigned  to  it  a  place  in  doctri¬ 
nal  theology  (Loci  Theol.  Tom.  xv.) ;  and  lastly,  the  sacraments  of  Confirmation  (which 
has  nothing  in  common  with  the  Protestant  rite  of  the  same  name),  and  of  Extreme  Unc- 
tion ,  are  only  considered  in  a  negative  aspect — viz.  as  sacramenta  spuria,  see  Heidegger , 
Loci  xxv.,  c.  23  ss. 

As  regards  Penance ,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  retained  the  scholastic  division  into 
contritio  (different  from  attritio)  cordis,  confessio  oris  and  satisfactio  operis,  while  the  only 
distinction  made  by  Protestants  was  that  between  contritio  and  tides.  Comp.  ConciL 
Trid.  Sess.  14,  c.  3,  and  in  defence  of  the  Protestant  view,  Conf.  Aug.  Art.  12:  Constat 
autem  poenitentia  proprie  his  duabus  partibus :  Altera  est  contritio,  seu  terrores  incussi 
conscientiae  agnito  peccato.  Altera  est  tides,  quae  concipitur  ex  evangelio  seu  absolutione 
et  credit  propter  Christum  remitti  peccata,  et  consolatur  conscientiam,  et  ex  terroribus 
liberat.  Deinde  sequi  detent  opera  bona,  quae  sunt  fructus  pcenitentice.  Art.  Smalcald,  p. 
321,  and  the  other  passages  quoted  by  Winer,  p.  150.  Respecting  Confession ,  the  two 
great  sections  of  the  Protestant  Church  differed  in  this,  that  the  earlier  Lutherans  attached 
importance  to  private  confession,  while  the  Reformed  wore  satisfied  (as  a  general  rule) 
with  public  confession.  But  neither  of  them  demanded,  like  the  Roman  Catholics,  a 
special  enumeration  of  all  sins,  in  consequence  of  which,  both  rejected  •  auricular  confes¬ 
sion.  Luther  especially,  in  his  treatise  :  De  Captiv.  Babyl.,  and  in  the  Articles  of  Smalcald, 
expressed  himself  in  strong  terms  against  this  confessio  carnijicina.  Art.  Smalcald,  p.  323. : 
Confessio  sic  instituabatur,  ut  homines  juberentur  omnia  sua  peccata  enumerare  (quod 
factu  impossibile  est)  hsec  ingens  carnificina  fuit.  Et  si  quis  quorundam  peccatorum  ob- 
litus  esset,  is  eatenus  absolvebatur,  ut  si  in  memoriam  ilia  recurrerent,  ea  postea  confite- 
retur,  etc.  As  to  the  relation  between  the  confessor  and  the  person  who  confesses,  the 
Roman  Catholics,  on  account  of  their  different  views  about  the  priesthood,  entertained 
different  opinions  from  the  Protestants ;  see  Winer,  1.  c.,  and  the  passages  quoted  by  him 
and  J.  H.  Jordan,  Einige  Capitel  fiber  die  Beichte,  Anspach,  1847.  Here,  too,  Zwingle 
advances  still  further  and  objects  to  Luther,  that  in  respect  to  absolution  he  still  holds  the 
old  doctrine  [“That  the  words  of  Christ,”  etc.,  Werke ,  ii.  2,  p.  22.] — As  regards  the  satisfactio, 
Protestants  from  the  first  not  only  rejected  pilgrimages  and  similar  observances,  but  also 
looked  on  prayers,  fastings,  and  alms,  in  a  very  different  light.  Concerning  Fasting ,  see 
Winer,  p.  155.  The  nova  obedientia  which  some  Protestants  would  have  substituted  for 
the  satisfactio  operis,  is,  properly  speaking,  the  same  with  tides  (the  second  part  of  pen¬ 
ance):  nevertheless  it  is  said  in  the  Apol.  Conf.,  p.  165:  Si  quis  volet  addere  tertiam 
[partem],  videlicet  dignos  fructus  pcenitentise,  h.  e.  mutationem  totius  vitae  ac  morum  in 
melius,  non  refragabimur. — The  Protestant  theologians  further  distinguished  between,  1. 
Poenitentia  prima  (magna) ;  2.  Continuata  (quotidiana) ;  3.  Iterata  (lapsorum);  4.  Sera 
(quae  fit  ultimas  vitae  momentis.)  The  question  whether  the  last  kind  was  admissible  or 
not,  gave  rise  to  a  controversy  with  the  Pietists  (the  so-called  lis  terministica).  Comp. 
Hose,  Hutterus  Redivivus,  p.  394. — Concerning  the  Sale  of  Indulgences  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  and  the  various  modifications  of  the  theory  of  Indulgences  (which  had 
their  origin  in  the  opposition  made  by  the  reformers)  see  Winer,  p.  159. — Respecting  the 
other  sacraments  (Confirmation,  Matrimony,  Extreme  Unction,  Holy  Orders),  see  ibid.,  p. 
160  ss.  The  difference  of  opinion  among  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics,  as  to  the 
validity  and  dissolubility  ot  Matrimony  (divortium),  prohibited  degrees  of  relationship,  the 
marriage  of  the  clergy,  the  vow  of  chastity  (in  connection  with  monachism),  resulted  from 
differences  in  fundamental  principles.  (For  the  respective  passages,  see  Wirier,  1.  c.) 
Comp.  Klee,  Dogmengeschichte,  vol.  ii.  [For  the  views  of  the  Anglican  Church,  see  Burnet , 
on  XXX IX  Articles,  and  Pearson  on  the  Creed.  Rev.  D.  Macleod ,  View  of  the  Anglican 
Church  on  Confession,  Lond.  1849.  Bp.  Hopkins ,  History  of  the  Confessional,  1850. 


326 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Church  Review,  (New  Haven)  1849.  R  Laurence ,  Essay  on  Confess.,  Penance,  Absolu¬ 
tion,  reprinted,  1852.  1.  R.  Beard,  The  Confessional,  Lond.,  1860.  Correspondence  on 

Auricular  Confession  between  Rev.  E.  B.  Pusey ,  and  Rev.  R.  H.  Fortescue ,  1854.] 

§  261. 

THE  DOCTRINE  CONCERNING  PURGATORY.  . 

In  connection  with,  the  doctrine  of  the  mass  and  its  efficacy,  the 
Eoman  Catholic  Church  maintained  the  existence  of  a  Purgatory  to 
which  the  souls  of  all  those  pious  persons  depart,  who  die  without 
having  made  full  satisfaction  for  their  sins,  and  out  of  which  they 
may  be  delivered  by  means  of  private  masses  and  indulgences .2  The 
Protestants  unanimously  rejected  this  unscriptural  doctrine,8  and  also 
the  Greek  theologians,  though  the  latter  admitted  the  notion  of  an 
intermediate  state  of  the  departed.4  [The  leading  divines  of  the 
Anglican  church  held  to  the  doctrine  of  the  intermediate  state,  while 
rejecting  purgatory.]5 

1  Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  22,  cap.  2  :  Non  solum  pro  fidelium  vivorum  peccatis, 
poenis,  satisfactionibus  et  aliis  necessitatibus,  sed  et  pro  defunctis  et  in  Christo 
nondum  ad  plenum  purgatis,  rite  juxta  Apostolorum  traditionem,  offertur. 
Comp.  c.  9,  can.  3 :  Si  quis  dixerit,  Missse  sacrificium ....  non  pro  defunctis 
offerri  debere  :  anathema  sit. 

2  Ibid.  Sess.  6,  can.  30,  but  especially  Sess.  25,  Cat.  Rom.  i.  6,  3  :  Est  pur- 
gatorius  ignis,  quo  piornm  animae  ad  definitum  tempus  cruciatse  expiantur, 
ut  eis  in  aeternam  patriam  ingressus  patere  possit,  in  quam  nihil  coinquinatum 
ingreditur.  Ac  de  hujus  quidem  doctrinas  veritate,  qnum  et  scripturarum 
testimoniis  et  apostolica  traditione  confirmatam  esse  sancta  concilia  decla¬ 
rant,  eo  diligentius  et  saepius  parocho  disserendum  erit,  quod  in  ea  tempora 
incidimns,  quibus  homines  sanam  doctrinam  non  sustinent.  Comp.  Bellar- 
mine ,  De  Amiss.  Grat.  et  Statu  Peccati,  i.  c.  14,  p.  116,  De  Justific.  v.  4. 
p.  1084.  Possuet,  Exposit.  8,  p.  72,  made  but  slight  mention  of  purga¬ 
tory,  and  bestowed  praise  upon  the  Council  of  Trent  on  account  of  the 
great  caution  ( grande  retenue ),  with  which  it  expressed  itself  concerning  this 
point. 

3  Art.  Smalcald.  p.  307  :  Purgatorium  et  quidquid  ei  solennitatis,  cultus 
et  qnaestus  adhaeret,  mera  diaboli  larva  est.  Pugnat  enim  cum  primo  articulo, 
qui  docet,  Christum  solum  et  non  hominum  opera  animas  liberare.  Zwingle 
taught  that  after  death  there  is  an  immediate  entrance  into  the  heavenly 
mansions;  Fidei  Expositio  (Opeifa,  p.  65)  :  Credimus  animas  fidelium  protinns 
ut  ex  corporibus  evaserint,  subvolare  in  coelum,  numini  conjnngi  aeternumque 
gaudere  :  comp.  p.  50  (De  Purgatorio). — Conf.  Helv.  IL  c.  26  :  Quod  quidam 
tradunt  de  igne  purgatorio,  fidei  christianse,  “Credo  remissionem  peccatorum 
et  vitam  seternam,”  purgationique  plense  per  Christum  et  Christi  sententiis 
adversatur.  Conf.  Gall.  24 :  Purgatorium  arbitramur  figmentum  esse  ex 

O  O 

eadem  ofiicina  profectum,  unde  etiam  manarunt  vita  monastica,  peregrina- 
tiones,  interdicta  matrimonii  et  usus  ciborum,  ceremonialis  certorum  dierum 


§  261.  The  Doctrine  Concerning  Purgatory.  327 

observatio,  confessio  auricularis,  indulgentiae,  ceteneque  res  omnis  ejusmodi, 
quibus  opinantur  qnidam,  se  gratiam  et  salutem  mereri. 

4  Conf.  Orth.  p.  112  :  IIa3f  irpenec  va  ypoucovp,ev  Sea  to  tcvq  to  tcaOap- 
TTjpiov  ;  ovdepia  ypacftr)  diaXapiftavei  nepl  avTOv •  va  evplonETac  drjXadrj  Kav 
uia  npoorcaipog  rcoXaaig  KaOapTinr]  tu)V  'ipvx&v,  voTepa  and  tov  OavaTOV. 
For  further  partieulars  see  Winer ,  pp.  157,  158. 

6  [See  JBurnet ,  Pearson ,  and  Browne  on  Thirty-Nine  Articles.  Art.  22 
declares  :  “  The  Romish  doctrine  concerning  Purgatory,  Pardons,  Worship¬ 
ping,  and  Adoration,  as  well  of  Images  as  of  Reliques,  and  also  Invocation 
of  Saints,  is  a  fond  thing  vainly  invented,  and  grounded  upon  no  warrants  of 
Scripture,  but  rather  repugnant  to  the  Word  of  God.” — Doctrine  of  the 
Church  on  Purgatory,  by  j Dr.  Thos.  Beacon  (a  non-juring  bishop,  died  1753), 
8 vo.,  1718.  Archd.  Blackburn,  Historical  Account  of  Controversy  about 
Intermediate  State,  2d  ed.,  1772  (Works,  vol.  3, 1804).  Archbishop  Usher ,  on 
Prayers  for  the  Dead,  reprinted  in  Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  72. — On  Purga¬ 
tory,  in  Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  79.] 


t 


SECOND  CLASS. 


DOCTRINES  IN  WHICH  PROTESTANTS  AND  ROMAN  CATHO¬ 
LICS  MORE  OR  LESS  AGREED 

(IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  MINOR  SECTS.) 


FIRST  DIVISION. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER. 

§  262. 

TRINITARIANS  AND  ANTITRINITARIANS. 

( 

However  much  Protestants  differed  from  Roman  Catholics  in  their 
general  system  of  faith,  they  were  in  perfect  accordance  as  to  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Triune  God ,  resting  on  the  decisions  of  the  ancient  oecu¬ 
menical  councils.1  The  views  of  the  earlier  Unitarians ,  as  well  as  of 
the  latter  Socinians ,  were  directly  at  variance  with  the  Trinitarian  doc¬ 
trine  of  three  persons  and  one  nature  in  God  ;  and  it  is  worthy  of 
observation  that  they  revived  the  various  Antitrinitarian  views  of 
former  times.  Michael  Servetus  adopted  the  position  of  Sabellius,  hut 
with  this  difference,  that  (after  the  example  of  Photinus)  he  made^a 
distinction  between  the  Son  of  God  who  appeared  in  time,  and  the 
eternal  Logos  (Word).2  Others,  again,  bordered  upon  Arianism.3 
Faustus  Socinus  returned  to  the  (abstract)  Unitarianism  of  the 
Nazarenes,  or  the  Alogi,  who,  acknowledging  only  the  Father  as 
God,  regarded  Christ  as  a  mere  man,  endowed  with  extraordinary 
gifts,  and  afterwards  elevated  to  heaven,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a 
divine  energy.4  The  Arminians  adhered  on  the  whole,  to  the  ortho¬ 
dox  doctrine,  but  with  intimations  as  to  the  subordination  of  both 
the  Son  and  the  Spirit6  to  the  F ather,  which  brought  upon  them  the 
reproach  of  a  tendency  to  Socinianism.  [In  England  the  subordina¬ 
tion  scheme  was  vindicated  by  Bishop  Bull ,  on  the  basis  of  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  early  fathers ;  the  Arian  system  was  revived  by  Samuel 


§  262.  Trinitarianism  and  Antitrinitarjanism.  329 


Clarke;  and  a  tendency  to  Tritheism  was  imputed  to  William 
Sherlock ,  by  Wallis  and  South,  who,  in  turn,  were  charged  with 
Sabellianism.]6 

1  Insinuations  were,  nevertheless,  thrown  out  against  the  reformers  them¬ 
selves,  as  if  they  countenanced  Antitrinitarian  errors/  Thus,  Colvin  was  at 
one  time  charged  with  Arianism  by  Caroli ;  see  Henry ,  Leben  Joh.  Calvins, 
vol.  i.  p.  181.  It  is,  however,  remarkable,  that  the  terms  Trinity  and  per¬ 
son  were  avoided  in  the  Confession  of  Geneva  ( Henry ,  p.  182).  Melancthon , 
too,  in  the  first  edition  of  his  Loci,  pronounced  the  scholastic  definitions  re¬ 
specting  the  nature  of  the  Trinity  foreign  to  Christian  theology.*  And 
Luther  frankly  confessed  (Ueber  die  letzten  Worte  Davids,  Wittenberg,  edit, 
vol.  v.  p.  551)  :  “It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  when  a  man  reads  this 
mysterious,  incomprehensible  article,  strange  thoughts  should  occur  to  him, 
of  which  one  or  another  is  sometimes  little  appropriate,  and  gives  rise  to 
dangerous  expressions.  Yet,  the  foundation  of  our  faith  remaining  unshaken, 
such  splinters,  chips,  and  straws,  will  do  us  no  harm.  But  the  basis  of  the 
faith  is  our  belief  that  there  are  three  persons  in  one  God,  and  each  person 
is  the  one,  perfect  God ;  so  that  the  three  persons  are  not  confounded,  nor 
the  divine  'substance  divided,  but  the  distinction  of  persons  and  unity  of 
nature  go  together.  This  is  the  great  mystery,  which  angels  will  never 
cease  to  contemplate  and  to  admire,  and  the  beholding  of  which  constitutes 
their  blessedness.  If  they  could  ever  see  the  end  of  it,  there  would  also  be 
an  end  of  their  blessedness.”!  Calvin  expresses  himself  in  a  more  specula¬ 
tive  way,  e.  g .,  in  his  Institutes,  i.  13,  and  elsewhere  (against  Servetus).  His 
exposition  of  the  Trinity,  says  Gass  (p.  105)  “is  undoubtedly  the  best1  the 
most  comprehensive  and  careful ,  which  can  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
reformers .”  The  definitions  of  the  schools,  however,  were  not  introduced 
into  the  Church  Confessions  of  the  Protestants.  The  Lutherans  simply  ap¬ 
pealed  to  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Creeds,  which,  together  with  the 
Apostles’  Creed,  were  prefixed  to  the  Liber  Concordiae.  Among  the 
symbolical  books  of  the  Reformed  Church,  the  First  Confession  of  Basle 
designates  the  first  article  (that  concerning  the  Trinity)  as  a  symbolum 
commune :  der  gemein  Gloub.  In  several  Confessions  of  Faith,  the  erro¬ 
neous  innovations  of  the  times  were  rejected.  Thus,  in  the  Conf.  Aug. 

Art.  1  : . Nomine  Personae  utuntur  ea  significatione,  qua  usi  sunt  in 

hac  causa  scriptores  ecclesiastici,  ut  significet  non  partem  aut  qualitatem 

in  alio,  sed  quod  proprie  subsistit.  Damnant  omnes  haereses . Samo- 

satenos  veteres  et  neotericos,  qui  cum  tantum  unam  personam  esse  contendant, 
de  Yerbo  et  de  Spiritu  Sancto  astute  et  impie  rhetoricantur ,  quod  non  sint 
personae  distinctae,  sed  quod  Yerbum  significet  verbum  vocale  et  Spiritus 
motum  in  rebus  creatum.  In  the  Apol.  it  is  said  ;  Primum  articulum  Con- 

*  This  is  otherwise  in  the  later  editions :  the  doctrine  is  most  fully  unfolded  by  I^elanc- 
thon  in  the  third  edition  of  his  Loci  (Corp.  Reform,  xxi.,  p.  614),  but  yet  without  any  proper 
speculative  construction. 

\  There  are  also  in  Luther  hints  about  a  speculative  treatment  of  the  doctrine  (see 
Eeppe ,  p.  285,  Dieckhoff,  §  214);  but  they  have  the  air  of  reminiscences  from  the  earlier 
scholastic  mysticism. 


330 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


fessionis  nostras  probont  nostri  adversarii. . .  .Hunc  articulum  semper  d^cni- 
mus  et  defendimus,  et  sentimus  earn  habere  certa  et  firma  testimonia  in 
Scripturis  Sanctis,  quae  labefactari  non  queunt.  Comp.  Conf.  Helvet.  II., 
Art.  3,  where,  in  proof  of  this  doctrine,  the  following  passages  are  quoted  from 
Scripture — viz.,  Luke  i.  35  ;  Matt.  iii.  16, 17  ;  John  i.  32  ;  Matt,  xviii.  19  ; 
John  xiv.  26,  xv.  26.*  Comp.  Conf.  Gall.  6  ;  Belg.  8  and  9 ;  Angl.  1  and 
2  ;  Scotica  1.  On  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  propounded  in  tbe  Catecb. 
Heidelberg.  ( God  tbe  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost),  see 
Beckhaus  in  Illgen,  1.  c.  p.  52. 

2  De  Trinitatis  Erroribus  in  7  books,  extracts  from  which  are  given  in 
Trechsel ,  Antitrinitar.  p.  67-98.  Servetus  instead  of  commencing  his  deduc¬ 
tion  with  the  Logos,  i.  e.,  in  a  speculative  manner,  adopted  the  analytico- 
historical  mode  of  procedure.  He  treats  first  of  the  person  of  Christ, f  i.  e.y 
Christ  in  human  manifestation.  This  is  the  Son  of  God ;  orthodox  theolo¬ 
gians,  he  says,  incorrectly  represent  the  Word  (taken  in  the  sense  applied  to 
it  by  the  Apostle  John)  as  the  Son,  and  thus  deny  that  the  man  Christ  is 
the  Son  of  God. — He  expressed  himself  in  decided  terms  against  the  separa¬ 
tion  of  two  natures.  In  his  opinion,  Christ  is  man  filled  with  the  divine 
nature,  and  wholly  pervaded  with  the  divine  nature.  He  only  denied  that 
God  is  man,  but  not  that  Christ  is  God. — He  regarded  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a 
divine  energy  and  breath  in  creation,  and  a  moral  principle  working  in  man ; 
in  reference  to  the  latter  point  he  is  called  Holy  Spirit. — But  Servetus  en¬ 
deavored,  in  every  way,  to  ridicule  the  ecclesiastical  (post-Nicene)  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  ;  he  only  admitted  a  triad  in  the  sense  of  Sabellius:  Quia  tres 
sunt  admirandse  Dei  dispositiones,  in  quarem  qualibet  divinitas  relucet,  ex 
quo  sanissime  trinitatem  intelligere  posses :  nam  Pater  est  tota  substantia  et 
unus  Deus,  ex  quo  gradus  isti  et  personatus  descendunt.  Et  tres  sunt,  non 
aliqua  rerum  in  Deo  distinctione,  sed  per  Dei  o’ucovopiav  variis  Deitatis 
formis;  nam  eadem  divinitas,  quae  est  in  Patre,  communicatur  filio  Jesu 
Christo  et  spiritui  nostro,  qui  est  templum  Dei  viventis ;  sunt  enim  filius  et 
sanctificatus  spiritus  noster  consortes  substantiae  Patris,  membra,  pignora  et 
instruments,  licet  varia  sit  in  iis  deitatis  species )  et  hoc  est,  quod  distinctae 
personae  dicuntur,  i.  e.,  multiformes  deitatis  aspectus,  diversae  facies  et  spe¬ 
cies.  Servetus  asserted  that  the  term  Logos ,  in  the  writings  of  John,  does  - 
not  denote  a  person,  but,  according  to  its  etymology,  signifies  oraculum,  vox, 
sermo,  eloquium  Dei.  In  his  argumentation,  he  returned  to  the  ancient 
distinction  between  Aoyof  kvdiaderog  and  tt pocfroputog  (f.  48,  quoted  by 
Trechsel ,  p.  79)  :  Verbum  in  Deo  proferente  est  ipsemet  Deus  loquens. 
Post  prolationem  est  ipsa  caro  ;  seu  Verbum  Dei,  antequam  caro  ilia  fieret, 
intelligebatur  ipsum  Dei  oraculum  inter  nubis  caliginem  nondum  manifesta- 
tum  (the  hidden  God),  quia  Deus  erat  ille  sermo.  Et  postquam  Verbum 
homo  factum  est,  per  Verbum  intelligimus  ipsum  Christum,  qui  est  Verbum 

*  It  is  remarkable  that  the  well  known  passage,  1  John,  v.  7,  is  nowhere  quoted;  Lu¬ 
ther  also  omitted  it  in  his  translation. — In  the  first  Confession  of  Basle  no  scriptural  proofs 
were  adduced,  but  in  a  marginal  note  it  was  observed :  “  this  is  proved  by  the  whole 
Scripture,  by  many  passages  in  both  the  Old  aod  the  New  Testaments.” 

f  Hence  we  must  here  anticipate  somewhat,  treating  of  the  christology  in  connection 
with  theology. 


fi. 

§  262.  Trinitarianism  and  Antitrini^arianism.  331 

Dei  et  vox  Dei ;  nam  quasi  vox  est  ex  ore  Dei  prolatus.  Propterea  dicitur 
ipse  Sermo  Patris,  quia  Patris  meutem  enuuciat  et  ejus  cognitionem  facit. 
In  his  opinion  there  was  no  interval  between  the  (hypostatical)  generation 
of  the  Son,  and  the  birth  of  Christ.  The  prolatio  verbi  and  the  generatio 
carnis  are  one  and  the  same  act.  He  also  rejected  what  were  commonly 
called  the  opera  ad  intra.  Comp.  Heherle :  Michael  Servets  Trinitatslehre 
und  Christologie  (in  the  Tubingen  Theologische  Zeitschrift,  1840,  2.  The 
chief  refutation  of  Servetus  was  by  Calvin ,  in  his  Defensio  orthod.  Fidei  ad- 
versus  prodigiosos  Errores  Serveti. 

8  This  was  the  case,  e.  g.,  with  William  Campanus ,  who,  though  refusing 
to  admit  the  Arian  phrase,  r/v  n ore  ore  ovk  fjv}  nevertheless  strongly  as¬ 
serted  the  subordination  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  and  termed  him  “  the 
steward  and  servant,  the  messenger  and  ambassador  of  God.”  But  the 
Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  especially  by  Campanus  impugned  :  “  Noth¬ 
ing  in  the  world  can  be  more  futile,  and  against  nothing  can  more  pow¬ 
erful  arguments  be  adduced  from  Scripture.”  Accordingly,  he  supposed 
the  existence  of  two  Divine  persons  alone— viz.,  the  Father  and  the  Son; 
as  matrimony  too  admits  only  two  persons,  and  excludes  every  third.  See 
Trechsel ,  p».  32  (after  Scfielhorn ,  Dissert,  de  Joh.  Campano  Antitrinitario,  in 
his  Amoenitatt.  Litt.  T.  xi.  p.  32,  ss.)  Adam  Pastoris  (Rudolph  Martini) 
also  appears  to  have  propounded  Arian  errors  rather  than  Sabellian ;  see 
Trechsel ,  p.  32. 

4  F.  Socinus  agreed  with  Servetus  in  rejecting  the  idea  of  persons  in  the 
Divine  nature ;  but  he  considered  Christ  as  'ipiXog  avdpomog,  not,  like  Serve¬ 
tus,  as  a  man  filled  and  pervaded  with  the  Divine  nature,  or,  as  it  were,  God 
appearing  in  the  world,  manifesting  himself  in  the  flesh.  He  differed  from 
the  Ebionites  only  in  this,  that  he  (like  the  Nazarenes)  supposed  the  birth  of 
Christ  to  be  supernatural.  He  substituted  a  man  who  became,  as  it  were, 
God,  for  God  becoming  man  ;  for  he  ascribed  a  kind  of  divine  worship  to 
that  Christ  who  after  his  resurrection,  wTas  elevated  to  heaven  (a  species  of 
worship  resembling  that  which  Roman  Catholics  render  to  their  saints,  though 
of  a  higher  order).  Comp.  Catech.  Racov.,  p.  32  :  Vox  Deus  duobus  potissi- 
mum  modis  in  Scripturis  usurpatur :  prior  est,  cum  designat  ilium,  qui  in 
coelis  et  in  terra  omnibus  ita  dominatur  et  prseest,  ut  neminem  superiorem  ag- 
noscat,  atque  in  hac  significatione  Scriptura  unum  esse  Deum  asserit.  Pos¬ 
terior  modus  est,  cum  eum  denotat,  qui  potestatem  aliquam  sublimem  ab  uno 
illo  Deo  habet  aut  deitatis  unius  illius  Dei  aliqua  ratione  particeps  est.  Ete* 
nim  in  Scripturis  propterea  Deus  file  unus  Deus  deorum  vocatur  (Ps.  1.  1.) 
Et  hac  quidem  posteriore  ratione  filius  Dei  vocatur  Deus  in  quibusdam  Scrip- 
tura3  locis. — That  Christ  was  ex  essentia  patris  genitus ,  is  most  strongly 
denied  in  the  Catech.  Racov.,  p.  56.  Other  passages  are  quoted  by  Winer , 
p.  42.  (Compare  below  on  Christology.) — Concerning  the  Holy  Spirit,  So¬ 
cinus  said,  in  his  Breviss.  Institt.  p.  652  :  Quid  de  Spir.  S.  dicis?  Nempe 
ilium  non  esse  personam  aliquam  a  Deo,  cujus  est  spiritus,  distinctam,  sed 
tantummodo  (ut  nomen  ipsum  Spiritus,  quod  flatum  et  afilationem,  ut  sic 
loquar,  significat,  docere  potest)  ipsius  Dei  vim  et  efficaciam  quandam,  i.  e. 
earn,  quae  secum  sanctitatem  aliquam  afferat,  etc.  Comp.  Bibl.  Fratr.  Pol. 
ii.,  p.  445,  b. :  Spiritum  Sanctum  virtutem  Dei  atque  efficaciam,  qua  aliquo 


332 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


modo  res  ab  ipso  Deo  sanctificantur,  esse  credimus.  Personam  vero  ipsum 
Spiritnm  Sanctum,  proprie  et  in  potiorem  significatum  acceptum,  et  ab  ipso 
Deo,  cujus  est  splritus,  distinctum  esse,  negamus.  Sanctam  motionem,  crea- 
tam  a  Deo  in  anima  bominis  metonymice  auctorem  rei  pro  re  ipsa  nominando, 
Spiritnm  Sanctum  appellari  posse,  dubitari  nequit.  Sed  aliud  est  appellari 
posse,  aliud  vero  re  ipsa  esse.  According  to  the  Socinians,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  is  equally  opposed  to  Scripture*  and  to  reason;  they  combated 
it  on  both  grounds :  see  Fock ,  Socinianismus,  p.  454  sq. 

5  The  Confess.  Remonstr.,  c.  3,  was  indeed  silent  on  the  subject  of  subor 
dination,  but  Fpiscopius  expressed  himself  as  follows,  Inst.  Theol.,  4,  2,  32, 
p.  33  :  Sed  addo,  certum  esse  ex  Scripturis,  personis  his  tribus  divinitatem 
divinasque  perfectiones  tribui  non  collateraliter  aut  coordinate,  sed  subordi¬ 
nate,  ita  ut  pater  solus  naturam  istam  divinam  et  perfectiones  istas  divinas  a 
se  habeat  sive  a  nullo  alio,  filius  autem  et  Spir.  S.  a  patre :  ac  proinde  patei 
divinitatis  omnis,  quae  in  filio  et  spiritu  sancto  est,  fons  ac  principium  sit. — * 
Limborch  Theol.  Christ.,  ii.  17,  §  25  :  Colligimus,  essentiam  divinam  et  filio 
etspiritui  sancto  esse  communem.  Sed  et  non  minus  constat,  inter  tres  hasce 
personas  subordinationem  esse  quandam,  quatenus  pater  naturam  divinam  a 
se  habet,  filius  et  spir.  S.  a  patre,  qui  proinde  divinitatis  in  filio  et  spiritu 
sancto  fons  est  et  principium.  Communis  christianorum  consensus  ordinis  ra- 
tione  prgerogativam  hanc  agnoscit,  patri  semper  tribuens  primum  locum, 
secundum  filio,  tertium  spiritui  sancto.  Sed  et  est  quasdam  supereminentia, 
patris  respectu  filii,  et  patris  ac  filii  respectu  spiritus  sancti,  ratione  dignitatis  ac 
potestatis.  Dignius  siquidem  est  generare,  quam  generari,  spirare  quam  spirari, 
etc. 

6  [Compare  above,  §  234,  Notes  10  and  11,  p.  213.  Bishop  Bull’s  De- 
fensio  Fidei  Nicen.,  1680,  was  intended  to  restore  the  authority  of  the  early 
fathers  of  the  church,  which  had  been  abandoned  by  some  of  the  orthodox. 
Petavius  even  had  endeavoured  to  show  that  little  dependence  could  be 
placed  upon  them.  The  Defensio  is  partly  in  opposition  to  him,  and  also  to 
Zwicker  and  Sandius.  Bossuet  claimed  that  Bull  held  to  the  infallibility  of 
the  Council  of  Nice  (Hist,  de  Variat.,  liv.  xv.,  §  103),  but  without  adequate 
grounds.  Bull’s  Judicium  Ecclesise  Catholic®,  1694,  had  more  direct  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  lax  views  of  Episcopius  and  Curcellaeus.  His  last  chief  work, 
Primitive  and  Apostolical  Tradition,  was  against  Zwicker  who  represented  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  Incarnation,  as  inventions  of  the  early  heretics. 
Bull’s  mode  of  discussion  is  historical  rather  than  metaphysical.  He  held 
to  a  subordination  of  the  Son  in  the  divine  essence,  while  opposing  Tritheism, 
Arianism,  and  Sabellianism. — The  controversy  was  carried  over  into  the 
metaphysical  question  by  Dr.  Wm.  Sherlock,  in  his  Vindication  of  the  Doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Trinity,  1690,  in  reply  to  two  anonymous  books,  viz.,  Brief 
Notes  on  the  Creed  of  Athanasius,  and  a  Brief  View  of  the  Unitarians  and 
Socinians.  Dr.  Sherlock  proposed  an  “  easy  and  intelligible”  mode  of  ex¬ 
plaining  the  Trinity.  But  he  was  opposed  as  tritheistic  by  Dr.  Wallis , 
Savilian  Prof.'of  Geometry  (in  7  Letters  to  a  Friend,  1690-1),  and  by  Robert 
South ,  Animadversions  on  Dr.  Sherlock’s  book,  1693.  The  two  latter  were 

*  1  John,  v.  7,  is  not  genuine,  but  even  if  so,  it  asserts  only  the  agreement  in  testimony 
and  not  the  unity  of  essence. 


§  263.  Systematic  Development. 


333 


accused  of  Sabellianism.  The  parties  were  termed  tritheists  and  nominalists. 
In  this  controversy  Bull  took  no  direct  part,  hut  some  of  the  points  are  dis¬ 
cussed  in  his  posthumous  work,  Discourse  on  the  Doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
Church  in  the  first  three  Centuries,  etc.,  drawn  up  for  Lord  Arundell.  Cud - 
worth's  Intellectual  System,  and  Stilling  fleet's  Vindication  of  the  Trinity, 
1697,  appeared  about  the  same  time.  The  latter  says  :  “  whether  an  infinite 
nature  can  communicate  itself  to  three  different  substances  without  such 
division  as  is  among  created  beings,  must  not  be  determined  by  bare  num¬ 
bers,  but  by  the  absolute  properties  of  the  Divine  nature,  which  must  be 
owned  to  be  above  our  comprehension.”  Dr.  Sherlock ,  besides  his  Vindi¬ 
cation,  also  wrote  a  Defence  of  his  Notice  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity  ;  the  Present 
State  of  the  Socinian  Controversy  ;  Distinction  between  Real  and  Nominal 
Trinitarians,  etc.  The  discussion  was  continued  between  Samuel  Clarke 
and  Waterland ,  (see  p.  213  above),  turning  upon  the  possibility  of  a  kind  of 
second,  and  inferior  deity,  which  was  maintained  by  Clarke,  who  appealed 
from  the  fathers  to  the  Scriptures.  His  position  was  substantially  that  of 
the  high  Arians.  Dr.  Waterland  replied,  vindicating  the  eternity  and  con- 
substantiality  of  the  Son,  and  exploding  the  distinction  between  absolute  and 
relative  deity.  Other  works  called  out  in  the  progress  of  the  discussion 
were,  Waterland' s  Sermons  at  Lady  Moyer’s  Lectures,  1720 ;  Whitby's 
Modest  Disquisition,  1715,  with  Waterland’s  replies  (turning  on  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  essence,  person,  personality,  hypostasis);  Waterland  says,  that  Whitby 
here  changes  the  state  of  the  question  :  “  With  Bishop  Bull,  the  question  was, 
whether  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  believed  the  Son  to  be  an  eternal ,  uncreated , 
and  strictly  divine  substance  :  with  you  (Whitby)  it  is,  whether  they  believed 
him  to  be  the  same  numerical,  intellectual  essence ,  {i.  e.  person),  with  the 
Father.”  Works  of  Calamy  (Sermons  on  Trinity),  Glocester  Ridley  (Divin¬ 
ity  of  Holy  Ghost,  reprinted,  Oxf.,  1802),  Whiston  (Council  of  Nice,  1713), 
Thos.  Randolph  (Vind.  of  Christ’s  Divinity),  Arthur  Collier  (Treatise  on 
the  Logos,  1732),  continued  the  controversy  to  the  close  of  the  period. 
Compare  also,  John  Howe's  Calm  Discourse  of  the  Trinity  in  the  Godhead ; 
and  John  Owen's  reply  to  Sherlock,  and  Brief  Vind.  of  Trinity  (works,  vol. 
x.) ;  Stilling  fleet's  Scripture  Mysteries,  and  Trinity  and  Transubstantiation 
compared  (republ.  in  Bp.  Randolph’s  Enchiridion  Theologicum,  vols.  2  and 
3) ;  JBerriman  on  the  Trinity,  1732 ;  Sherlock  on  the  Socinian  Controversy, 
1698  ;  Edwards'  Preservative  against  Socinianism,  1703.  See  Van  Mil¬ 
der  t's  Life  of  Waterland.] 


§  263. 

THE  SYSTEMATIC  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  CONCERNING  GOD, 
TOGETHER  WITH  ITS  MYSTICAL  AND  SPECULATIVE  ASPECT. 

* 

Faith  in  the  Trinity  served  as  a  basis  for  the  farther  develop¬ 
ment  of  theology  in  the  Protestant  Church.  Among  the  argu¬ 
ments  for  the  existence  of  Gody  the  ontological  proof  was  revived  by 
Des  Cartes'  Most  doctrinal  writers  of  this  period,  however,  made 


334 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


the  historical  fact  of  a  divine  revelation  to  man  the  starting  point 
of  their  systems,  and  thus  necessarily  presupposed  the  metaphysical 
existence  of  God.3  They  indulged  more  freely  in  definitions  respect¬ 
ing  his  attributes,  adopting  for  the  most  part  the  scholastic  method 
of  investigation.53  But  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  particular  was 
further  carried  out  both  by  systematic  and  argumentative  theolo¬ 
gians,  and  by  theosophic  mystics.  The  theology  of  the  schools, 
(which  even  went  so  far  as  to  make  salvation  dependent  upon  dog¬ 
matic  definitions),4  made  a  distinction  between  the  relation  in  which 
the  divine  persons  stand  to  each  other  (opera  ad  intra),  and  the  rela¬ 
tion  in  which  they  stand  to  the  world  and  to  mankind  (opera  ad 
extra),  which  were  again  variously  subdivided.5  On  the  other  hand, 
the  mystics  endeavoured  to  fathom  the  depths  of  the  mystery,  but 
in  doing  this  frequently  confounded  theology  with  natural  philoso¬ 
phy.6 

1  Cartesii  Meditatt.  de  Prima  Philos,  in  quibus  Dei  Existentia  et  Animae 
humanae  a  Corpore  Distinctio  demonstratur.  Amst.,  1641,  4  (1654.) — 
Principia  Philosophise,  Amst.  1650,  4,  Lib.  i.  c.  14  :  Considerans  deinde 
inter  diversas  ideas,  quas  apnd  se  habet  [mens],  nnam  esse  entis  summe  intel- 
ligentis,  summe  potentis  et  summe  perfecti,  quae  omnium  longe  praecipua  est, 
agnoscit  in  ipsa  existentiam  non  possibilem  et  contingentem  tantum,  quem- 
admodum  in  ideis  aliarum  omnium  rerum,  quas  distincte  percipit,  sed  om- 
nino  necessariam  et  seternam.  Atque  ut  ex  eo,  quod,  exempli  causa,  percipiat 
in  idea  trianguli  necessario  contineri,  tres  ejus  angulos  aequales  esse  duobus 
rectis,  plane  sibi  persuadet,  triangulum  tres  angulos  habere  aequales  duobus 
rectis,  ita  ex  eo  solo,  quod  percipiat  existentiam  necessariam  et  aeternam  in 
entis  summe  perfecti  idea  contineri,  plane  concludere  debet,  ens  summe 
perfectum  existere.  (As  regards  the  question  whether  God  may  be  com¬ 
prehended,  or  not,  Des  Cartes  appropriately  distinguished  between  compre- 
hendere  Deurn,  and  intelligere.  The  former  is  denied  to  us,  the  latter  alone 
is  permitted,  1.  c.  c.  19.) 

2  Melanctkon  speaks  of  the  consciousness  of  God  implanted  in  man ;  see 
his  Locus  de  Deo  (Corpus  Reform,  xxi.  p.  107),  and  the  passages  cited  by 
Heppe ,  p.  261,  sq.  \e.  g.  in  his  Comm,  on  Romans,  i.  19:  Divinitas  ejus  et 
seterna  potentia,  i.  e .,  quod  sit  Deus  aeternus,  potens,  sapiens,  justus,  bonus, 
puniens  injustos,  exaudiens  et  adjuvans  justos,  haec,  inquam,  agnoscit  mens, 
intuens  opificium  mundi.  In  his  De  Anima,  he  says,  that  the  works  of  the 
visible  creation  would  not  lead  men  to  a  knowledge  of  God,  nisi  prius  fulge- 
rent  in  mentibus  nostris  multae  notitise,  distinctio  unitatis  et  multitudinis, 
distinctio  naturae  sapientis  et  bonae.  Imo  etiam  aliquam  Dei  notitiam  inter 
has  fulgere  in  nobis  oportet,  ut  ad  earn  accommodari  signa  possint.]  Luthe * 
speaks  in  the  same  way,  ibid.  p.  264,  sq.  [The  knowledge  of  God,  he  says, 
in  his  Commentary  on  Romans,  i.  19,  is  implanted  in  the  heart  of  man,  etc. 
Calvin ,  also  in  his  Institutes,  strongly  asserted  this  implanted  knowledge  of 
deity  ;  and  this  was  generally  held  by  the  Reformed  divines  :  see  Schweizer , 
Glaubenslehre,  i. ;  and  Heppe,  Dogmatik  der  evang.-Reform.  Kirche,  1861, 


§  263.  Systematic  Development. 


835 


p.  37,  s<?.]  On  the  proofs  of  the  existence  of  God,  Baier ,  observes,  p.  159  : 
Esse  Deum  inter  christianos  supponi  magis,  quam  probari  debere,  videri 
potest :  quia  tamen  non  solum  cum  Atheis,  verum  etiam  alias  ob  corrup- 
tionem  naturae  cum  dubitationibus  mentium  nostrarum  decertandum  est: 
ideo  non  sunt  negligendi ,  qui  Dei  existentiam  probant.  Most  of  the  earlier 
orthodox  theologians  made  no  mention  of  these  arguments,  and  it  was  not 
till  after  the  time  of  Wolf,  “  that  they  were  held  to  be  as  momentous  as  if  the 
existence  or  non-existence  of  God  depended  on  them  Hase ,  Hutterus  Redi- 
vivus,  p.  126.  Yet  still  it  was  a  part  of  orthodoxy  to  hold  that  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  God  could  be  proved.  Thus  the  Consensus  Repetitus,  Punct.  10  (in 
Henke's  ed.,  p.  9),  says  against  Calixt :  Rejicimus  eos,  qui  docent,  quod 
sit  Deus  non  debere  a  Theologo  probari,  sed  tamquam  naturaliter  supponi. 

3  The  divine  attributes  were  not  called  proprietates  (which  have  reference 
to  the  Trinity,  comp,  note  4),  but  attributa  Dei,  i.  e.  conceptus  essentiales, 
quibus  notio  Dei  absolvitur  ;  these  again  were  subdivided  into  quiescentia  and 
transeuntia,  etc.  See  Hollaz,  p.  235  :  Attributa  divina  ab  essentia  divina  et 
a  se  invicem  distinguuntur  non  nominaliter ,  neque  realiter ,  sed  formaliter , 
sec.  nostrum  concipiendi  modum,  non  sine  certo  distinctionis  fundamento. 
Concerning  the  particular  attributes,  compare  the  compendiums  of  De  Wette , 
p.  56  ;  Hase ,  Hutterus  Redivivus,  p.  135,  ss.  Among  the  Reformed  divines, 
the  doctrine  of  the  divine  attributes  was  most  completely  developed  by  Hype- 
rius ,  and  TJrsinus ;  see  Heppe ,  Dogmatik  des  deutschen  Protest,  i.  p.  274 
[also  his  Dogmatik  d.  evang.-Ref.  Kirche,  p.  42,  sq^\ — The  Socinians  (like 
Origen)  limited  the  omniscience  of  God;  see  Dorner  (review  of  Winer's 
Symbolik  in  the  Theolog.  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1838,  part  2.)* 

4  After  the  manner  of  the  Athanasian  symbol,  Quicunque  vult  salvus  esse, 
etc.,  the  Consensus  Repetitus,  punct.  11  (in  Henke ,  p.  10),  declares:  Rejici¬ 
mus  eos,  qui  docent,  quod  sufficiat  credere  unum  esse  Deum,  qui  pater  sit,  et 
films,  et  spiritus  sanctus,  neque  ad  credenda  sive  ad  articulos  fidei  proprie 
stricteque  ita  dictos,  quorum  videlicet  ignorantia  salutem  excludit,  pertineant 
notiones  divinse,  proprietates  et  relationes,  quomodo  et  a  se  invicem  et  ab 
essentia  modaliter  sive  alio  modo  distinguantur  personasve  constituant,  etc. 

4  A.  The  opera  ad  intra  (notse  internse)  constitute  the  character  hyposta- 
ticus  of  each  person.  They  are  immanent,  and  may  be  divided  into  a.  Actus 
personates  (a)  Pater  generat  filium  et  spirat  Spiritum.  (3)  Filius  generatur 
a  Patre,  spirat  cum  Patre  Spir.  Sanctum,  (y)  Spir.  S.  procedit  a  Patre 
Filioque.  b.  Proprietates  personates.  ( a )  Paternatis,  (/3)  Filiatio  s.  gene- 

*  How  much  Luther  avoided  all  scholastic  subtility  in  his  definitions  of  the  divine  attri¬ 
butes,  e.  g .,  the  omnipresence  of  God,  may  be  seen  from  the  following  passage,  taken 
from  his  treatise:  Bekenntniss  vom  Abendmahl  (Walch,  xx.  1802):  “We  say  that  God 
is  not  such  an  outstretched,  long,  broad,  thick,  high,  deep  being,  but  a  supernatural,  in¬ 
comprehensible  being,  existing  wholly  in  every  grain  of  sand,  and  yet  at  the  same  time 
in,  above ,  and  beyond ,  all  creatures ;  hence  there  can  be  no  limitation,  such  as  man  fan¬ 
cies.  . .  .Nothing  is  so  small,  but  that  God  is  still  smaller;  nothing  so  great,  but  that  God 
is  still  greater ;  nothing  so  short,  but  that  God  is  still  shorter  ;  nothing  so  long,  but  that  God 
is  still  longer ;  nothing  so  broad,  but  that  God  is  still  broader ;  nothing  so  narrow,  but 
that  God  is  still  narrower.  Thus  he  is  an  incomprehensible  and  ineffable  being,  above  and 
beyond  all  that  we  may  name  or  think.” 


336 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


ratio  passiva.  (y)  Spiratio  passiva.  c.  JVotiones  personates,  ayevvrjaia  et 
spiratio  activa.  d.  Or  do  subsistendi.  Pater  est  prima,  Filins  secunda  et 
Spiritus  tertia  persona  deitatis.  B.  The  opera  ad  extra  may  be  divided  into  : 
a .  Opera  ceconomica,  u  e.  ea,  quse  Deus  facit  ad  reparandam  generis  humani 
salntem  seternam.  (a.)  Pater  ablegavit  Filium  ad  homines  redimendos,  et 
mittit  Spir.  Sanct.  ad  homines  regenerandos  et  sanctificandos.  (/3)  Filius 
redemit  genus  humanum  et  mittit  Spir.  S.  (y)  Spir.  S.  mittitur  in  animos 
hominum,  eosque  participes  reddit  salutis  per  Christum  partse.  b.  Opera 
attributiva  (communia),  i.  e.  ea,  quse,  quamquam  sint  tribus  personis  com- 
munia,  tamen  in  Sc.  S.  plerumque  adscribuntur  singulis,  (a)  Pater  creavit, 
eonservat  et  gubernat  omnia  per  Filium.  (/3)  Filius  creavit  mundum,  mor- 
tuos  resuscitabit  atque  judicium  extremum  exercebit.  (y)  Spir.  S.  inspiravit 
prophetas.  Compare  Be  Wette,  p.  81,  where  an  estimate  is  given  in  the 
light  of  doctrinal  history;  Hase ,  Hutterus  Redivivus,  p.  173;  Heppe ,  p. 
292,  sq. 

6  J.  Bohme ,  Myster.  Magn.  vii.  6  ( Wullen ,  p.  5)  :  “  When  it  is  said  of 
God,  that  he  is  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  it  is  right  well  so  said  ;  but  it  must 
be  explained,  or  else  the  unillumined  soul  will  not  comprehend  it.  The 
Father  is  the  Will  of  the  Uncaused  [Ungrund],  he  is  also  from  all  nature, 
outside  of  all  that  has  beginning,  the  producing  Will ;  he  concentrates  him¬ 
self  in  a  desire  for  selfrevelation”. . .  .7  :  “This  Desire  is  the  determinative 
Power  of  the  Will  or  of  the  Father,  it  is  his  Son,  Heart  and  Seat,  the  first, 
eternal,  beginning  in  the  Will,  and  is  called  Son,  because  it  takes  its  eternal 
.  origin  in  the  Will,  when  the  Will  is  first  determined” ....  8  :  “  The  Will 
thus  expresses  itself  in  and  by  this  self-determination  as  an  out-breathing 
or  a  revelation ;  and  this  outgoing  of  the  Will  in  expression  or  breathing  is 
the  Spirit  of  Deity,  or  the  Third  Person,  as  the  ancient  church  alleges.”  Theo- 
sophische  Fragen,  ii.  2,  3  ( Wullen,  8,  8) :  “  The  Will  is  a  mere  willing  de¬ 
sire  of  love,  a  proceeding  from  itself  to  its  susceptibility.  The  Will  is  the 
eternal,  aboriginal  Father,  and  the  susceptibility  of  love  is  the  eternal  Son, 
which  the  Will  generates  in  itself  to  an  emotiopal  capacity  of  love,  and  the 
proceeding  of  the  willing,  susceptible  love  is  the  Spirit  of  the  divine  life. 
And  thus  the  eternal  unity  is  a  threefold,  immeasurable  life  without  begin¬ 
ning,  which  consists  in  pure  wulling,  purpose  and  susceptibility  in  and  of  itself, 
and  in  an  eternal  proceeding  from  itself’ ....  Morgenrotlie  im  Aufgang,  iii.  14 
(in  Wullen,  p.  9) :  “  The  Father  is  all,  and  all  power  consists  in  the  Father, 
he  is  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  all  things,  and  besides  him  is  nothing, 
and  all  that  has  come  to  be,  comes  from  the  Father ;  for  before  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  creation  there  was  nothing  but  God.  But  now  thou  must  not  think 
that  the  Son  is  another  God  than  the  Father,  that  he  is  outside  of  the  Father, 
as  when  two  men  stand  alongside  one  another,  the  one  of  whom  does  not 
comprehend  the  other.  No,  this  is  not  the  relation  between  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  for  the  Father  is  not  an  image  that  can  be  compared  with  anything  ; 
but  the  Father  is  the  fountain  of  all  powers,  and  all  powers  are  in  one  an¬ 
other  as  one  power;  hence  he  is  also  called  one  God.  If  his  powers  were 
separated,  he  were  not  almighty ;  but  now  he  is  the  independent  almighty 
and  all-powerful  God.”  iii.  15  :  “The  Son  is  the  heart  in  the  Father,  the 
heart  or  the  kernel  in  all  the  powers  of  the  whole  Father.  From  the  Son 


§  264.  Creation  and  Preservation. 


337 


ascends  the  eternal,  heavenly  joy,  springing  up  in  all  the  powers  of  the 
Father,  a  joy  which  no  eye  hath  seen,”  etc.  iii.  28  :  “  Just  as  the  three  ele¬ 
ments,  fire,  air  and  water,  proceed  from  the  sun  and  the  stars,  and  make  the 
living  movement  and  the  soul  of  all  creatures  in  this  world ;  so  too  the  Holy 
Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  makes  the  living  move¬ 
ment  in  all  powers  of  the  Father.  And  just  as  the  three  elements  move 
in  the  depths  as  independent  souls,  although  flowing  forth  from  all  the 
powers  of  the  stars,  and  just  as  all  the  forces  of  the  sun  and  the  stars  are  in 
the  three  elements,  as  if  these  were  themselves  the  sun  and  the  stars;  so 
the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  he  moves  in  the  whole 
Father,  and  is  the  life  and  soul  of  all  the  forces  in  the  whole  Father.”  Yon 
dem  dreifachen  Leben  des  Menschen,  vii.  22  (in  Wullen ,  p.  25) :  “  God  is 
threefold  in  person,  and  willed  to  move  himself  in  a  threefold  way  according 
to  the  properties  of  each  person,  and  no  more  in  eternity.  First  the  centre 
of  the  nature  of  the  Father  moved  itself  to  the  creation  of  angels,  and  then 
to  this  world.  Next  the  nature  of  the  Son  moved  itself,  wherein  the  heart 
of  God  became  man,  and  this  will  not  happen  again  in  eternity  ;  and  that  it 
occurred  was  through  the  same  one  man,  wTho  is  God,  through  many  in 
many.  Thirdly,  at  the  end  of  the  world  the  nature  of  the  Holy  Spirit  will 
move  itself,  and  the  dead  will  arise.  Thus  the  Holy  Spirit  will  be  the 
mover,  who  will  put  the  great  wonders,  which  occur  in  this  world,  all  in  the 
eternal  essence,  to  the  honor  of  God  and  the  joy  of  the  creature  ;  and  he 
will  be  the  eternal  mover  of  the  creatures,  for  through  him  Paradise,  which 
we  had  lost,  becomes  green  again.”  Erste  Schutzschrift  wider  Balth.  Tilken, 
406  (in  Wullen ,  p.  69)  :  “He  that  seizes  hold  upon  the  one  living  God,  has 
hold  upon  the  whole  Trinity.” 

"With  Calixtus  and  his  disciples  there  was  a  controversy  on  the  question, 
how  far  the  Trinity  was  contained  in  the  Old  Testament ;  see  Schmid ,  Dog- 
matik,  p.  217,  sq .  Consensus  Repetitus  Fidei,  Punct.  13  (in  Henke ,  p.  11): 
Rejicimus  eos,  qui  docent,  in  libris  Yet.  Test,  vestigia  Trinitatis  potius,  quam 
aperta  animumque  convincentia  dicta  reperiri,  seu  insinuari  potius,  quam 
clare  proponi  Trinitatis  mysterium.  Proof-texts  ;  Gen.  xxvi. ;  Psalm  xxxiii. 
6,  etc. 


§  264. 

CREATION  and  preservation  of  the  world,  providence  and 

GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  WORLD. 

Theologians  of  all  denominations  agreed  in  the  theistic  conception 
of  the  divine  nature,  and,  consequently,  in  supposing  that  God  per¬ 
formed  a  real  act  of  creation,  i.  e.  created  the  world  out  of  nothing.1 
The  mystics,  however,  promoted  more  than  ever  before  the  pantheis¬ 
tic  tendency.2  The  speculative  systems  of  the  age  were  favorable 
either  to  such  pantheistic  tendencies,  by  which  God  and  the  world  were 
confounded,  or  to  deistic  principles,  which  banished  the  Creator  from 
his  works.3  The  results  of  the  newly  cultivated  study  of  the  natu- 

22 


338 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


ral  sciences  already  appeared  irreconcilable  with  the  literal  interpre¬ 
tation  of  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation  of  the  world/  The 
doctrines  concerning  the  preservation  of  the  world/  concerning  prov¬ 
idence  and  the  government  of  the  world/  propounded  by  earlier 
theologians,  were  more  fully  developed  in  the  theological  systems 
of  the  present  age.  Leibnitz  elevated  the  Theodicy  into  a  philo¬ 
sophical  science.7 

1  The  prolific  and  genial  soul  of  Luther,  and  his  fresh  love  of  nature,  led 
him  to  view  the  work  of  creation  with  the  eye  of  a  pious  poet  rather  than 
with  that  of  a  subtile  scholastic,  as  may  he  seen  from  many  humorous  and  witty 
passages  in  his  “  Table-Talk,”  etc.  To  questions  such  as,  What  was  God 
doing  prior  to  the  creation  of  the  world  ?  he  replied  ironically.*  Melancthon, 
on  the  other  hand,  had  a  special  Locus  de  Creatione  in  his  system  (edition 
of  1543,  Corpus  Reform,  xxi.  p.  638),  in  which,  wholly  in  the  sense  of 
Luther,  he  points  to  the  necessary  connection  between  creation  and  preser¬ 
vation  (see  note  5). —  Calvin  had  less  susceptibility  to  nature  than  Luther 
(see  Henry ,  i.  485),  and  hence  did  not  view  the  world  as  much  from  the 
esthetic  side.  Nevertheless,  comp.  Inst.  i.  c.  14,  p.  53  :  Interea  ne  pigeat  in 
hoc  pulcherrimo  theatro  piam  oblectationem  capere  ex  manifestis  et  obviis 
Dei  operibus.  Est  enim  hoc. . .  .etsi  non  prtecipuum,  naturae  tamen  ordine 
primum  fidei  documentum,  quaquaversum  oculos  circumferamus,  omnia  quae 
occurrunt  meminisse  Dei  esse  opera,  et  simul  quem  in  finem  a  Deo  condita 
sint  pia  cogitatione  reputare. . . .  Yerum  quia  nunc  in  didactico  versamur 
genere,  ab  iis  supersedere  nos  convenit,  quae  longas  declamationes  requirunt. 
Ergo,  ut  compendio  studeam,  tunc  sciant  lectores  se  vera  fide  apprehendisse, 
quid  sit  Deum  coeli  et  terrae  esse  creatorem,  si  illam  primum  universalem 
regulam  sequantur,  ut,  quas  in  suis  creaturis  Deus  exhibet  conspicuas  virtutes, 
non  ingrata  vel  incogitantia  vel  oblivione  transeant ;  deinde  sic  ad  se  appli- 
care  discant,  quo  penitas  afficiantur  in  suis  cordibus. — In  the  symbolical 
books  only  a  passing  reference  is  made  to  the  doctrine  of  creation,  because 
there  was  no  occasion  for  entering  into  controversies ;  the  expressions  there 
used  have  regard  to  the  practical  rather  than  the  doctrinal  aspects  of  this 
subject.  Comp.  e.  g.  the  Catech.  Major  of  Luther,  Art.  1. — On  the  other 
hand,  later  theologians  more  fully  developed  the  idea  of  creatio  ex  nihilo. 
They  made  a  distinction  between  nihil  privatum  (materia  inhabilis  et  rudis) 
and  nihil  negativum  (negatio  omnis  entitatis),  and  maintained  the  creation 
out  of  nothing  in  both  respects. — To  the  questions,  whether  there  was  any 
time  antecedent  to  the  creation  of  th©  world,  or,  whether  God  created  time 
when  he  created  the  world  t  some  replied  (after  the  example  of  Augustine) 
mundum  esse  conditum  cum  tempore.  Again,  other  theologians  (of  the 
Reformed  Church),  supposing  the  previous  existence  of  time,  fixed  upon 
-different  periods  as  those  in  which  God  created  the  world ;  thus  Alsted  de- 

*  His  reply  to  the  question,  Where  was  God  prior  to  the  creation  of  the  world  ?  was : 
41  in  the  birch-grove,  cutting  rods,  to  punish  impertinent  questioners.”  Hase ,  Gnosis,  ii.  p 
183.  .Comp,  .his  Introduction  to  Genesis. 


264.  Creation  and  Preservation. 


339 


cided  in  favor  of  tlie  spring,  Heidegger  gave  the  preference  to  autumn* 
Calov.  iii.  909,  adopted  an  intermediate  view  :  God  created  non  in  tempore 
proprie,  sed  in  primo  instanti  ac  principle  temporia ;  and  HMaz  said,  p. 
359  :  in  tempore  non  prreexistente,  sed  coexistente.  Compare  the  passages 
quoted  by  De  Wettc,  p.  61  ;  Hase,  Ilutterus  Redivivus,  p.  152  ;  Heppe,  p. 
305. — Theologians  (such  as  Gerhard,  Quenstedt,  Hollaz,  Alsted ’)  further  dis¬ 
tinguished  between  Creatio  prima  seu  immediata  ( i .  e.  the  creation  of  mat¬ 
ter),  and  Creatio  secunda  seu  mediata  (i.  e.  the  creation  of  form.)f — The 
real  object  of  the  creation  of  the  world  (finis  ultimus)  was  thus  defined  by 
Calov.  iii.  900  :  ut  bonitas,  sapientia  et  potentia  Dei  a  creaturis  rationabili- 
bus  celebraretur,  in  creaturis  universis  agnosceretur ;  the  subordinate  end 
(finis  intermedius)  is  the  happiness  of  the  creature.  Comp.  Heidegger,  vi. 
8  ;  De  Wette ,  pp.  61,  62.J  On  the  Socinian  idea  of  creation,  see  Hock,  p. 
478,  sq.  11  It  can  scarcely  be  doubted,  that  Socinianism  did  not  teach  a 
creation  from  nothing,  but  rather  a  creation  from  preexistent  matter .”  De 
Vera  Religione,  ii.  4  :  Ideo  Dens  ex  nihilo  omnia  fecisse  dicitur,  quia  ea  creavit 
ex  materia  informi,  hoc  est  ejusmodi,  qusc  nec  actu  nec  naturali  aliqua  po¬ 
tentia  seu  inclicatione  id  fuerit,  quod  postea  ex  ea  fuit  formatum,  ita  ut,  nisi 
vis  qusedam  infinita  accessisset,  nunquam  quicquam  ex  ea  fuisset  exstiturum. 
(Proof-passages  given  are  2  Maccab.  vii.  28,  interpreted  after  Wisdom,  xi. 
18,  and  Hebrews,  xi.  3.) 

2  Sebastian  Frank,  Paradoxa,  332,  b.  (in  Erbkam,  p.  356) :  “  God  alone 
is  mover  and  worker  of  all  things  ;  all  creatures  do  their  work  not  actively 
but  passively.  The  creature  acts  not,  but  is  acted  on  ;  as  God  works  through 
each,  so  it  works;  the  creature  only  holds  still,  and  is  passive  to  God. . . . 
For  the  bird  does  not  really  sing  and  fly,  but  is  besung  and  borne  up  into 
the  air ;  it  is  God  that  sings,  lives,  moves,  and  flies  in  the  bird.  He  is  the 
ossence  of  all  essences,  so  that  all  creatures  are  full  of  him,  and  do  and  are 
nothing  but  what  God  tells  and  wills.”  Jacob  Hohme,  Mysterium  Magnum, 
1,  2  (quoted  by  Wullen,  p.  4)  :  “  God  is  the  one  in  relation  to  the  creature, 
an  eternal  nothing  ;  he  has  neither  a  foundation,  nor  a  commencement,  nor 
a  place  [of  residence],  and  possesses  nothing  but  himself.  He  is  the  will  of 
that  which  has  no  ground,  in  himself  he  is  only  one ;  he  needs  no  place  or 
space  ;  from  eternity  to  eternity  he  begets  himself  in  himself,”  etc. — Theo- 
sophisches  Sendschreiben,  47,  4  (in  Wullen,  p.  13)  :  “In  God  all  essences 
are  only  one  essence,  an  eternal  unity,  the  one  eternal  good  ;  but  the  eternal 
unity  could  not  become  manifest  to  himself,  if  there  were  no  sundering. 

*  Towards  the  commencement  of  the  last  century,  Hogel,  a  rector  in  Gera,  actually 
discovered  that  God  commenced  the  work  of  creation,  Oct.  26th,  towards  evening.  See 
Uase,  Gnosis  1.  c. 

f  Ve  are  reminded  of  the  old  scholasticism  by  the  question,  whether  lice,  fleas,  and 
suchlike  vermin,  quae  vel  ex  varia  diversarum  specierum  commixtione  vel  ex  putredine 
aut  consimili  quadam  ratione  hodie  enascuntur — were  created — in  primo  'creationis  sexti* 
duo  ?  Haffenreffcr  responds,  that  they  were  not  on  hand  actu ,  but  potentia ,  i.  e.  in  aliis 
animalium  speciebus  et  materise  habilitate  latuerunt,  see  Heppe,  p.  413,  note. 

\  It  is  evident  from  what  has  been  said  respecting  the  different  opinions  concerning  the 
Trinity,  that  Trinitarians  alone  would  ascribe  the  work  of  creation  to  all  the  per* 
sons,  which  was  denied  by  Unitarians.  But  the  Arminians  and  Mennonites  also  referred 
it  to  the  Father  in  particular.  Compare  the  passages  quoted  by  Neudecker,  p.  347  ss. 


340 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Therefore  it  breathed  itself  out  from  itself  in  such  a  way,  that  it  introduced  a 
plurality  and  distinctions  in  its  own  will  and  in  properties,  and  the  properties 
•in  the  desires,  and  the  desires  in  beings.” — Von  der  Gehurt  und  Bezeichnung 
aller  Wesen  16,  1,  (Wullen,  p.  21)  :  “The  creation  is  nothing  but  a  mani¬ 
festation  of  the  all-essential,  unfathomable  God  ;  is  all  that  he  is  in  his  eternal 
never-beginning  generation  that  also  is  the  creation,  but  it  is  not  his  omnipo¬ 
tence  and  power.”  C.  11  :  “  The  being  of  beings  is  only  one  being,  but  in 
his  generation  he  separates  himself  into  light  and  darkness,  joy  and  sorrow, 
good  and  evil,  love  and  hatred,  fire  and  light,  and  out  of  these  two  eternal 
beginnings,  arises  the  third  beginning — viz.  the  creation  for  his  own  delight, 
and  according  to  his  eternal  desire.” — Von  dem  dreifachen  Leben  des  Men- 
schen,  vi.  5  (  Wullen ,  p.  23)  :  “  God  himself  is  the  being  of  beings,  we  are,  as 
it  were,  gods  in  him,  through  whom  he  manifests  himself.”  (The  same  ideas 
are  expressed  in  other  passages.) — The  same  mystical  pantheism  pervades  the 
(poetical)  works  of  Scheffler  (Angelus  Silesius.)  Compare  the  passages 
quoted  by  WacJcernagel ,  Lesebuch,  ii.,  p.  431  ss.  Hagenbach ,  Vorlesungen 
tiber  die  Reformation,  iv.  p.  424. — These  mystics  widely  differed  from  the 
pietists ;  see  Spener,  Theologische  Bedenken,  iii.  302  (edit,  of  Henniche ,  p. 
24)  :  “  Thus  there  remains  such  an  infinite  distinction  between  God  and  the 
creature,*  that  both  beings  are  not  one  being,  though  they  are  most  inti¬ 
mately  connected  with  each  other.” 

3  Thus  the  theory  of  Leibnitz ,  his  doctrine  of  monads,  and  preestablished 
harmony,  was  opposed  to  the  scriptural  (and  ecclesiastical)  doctrine  of  crea¬ 
tion,  inasmuch  as  by  the  assumption  of  the  existence  of  atoms  (Entelechien) 
the  Creator  was  thrown  too  much  into  the  shade ;  on  the  other  hand,  the 
pantheism  of  Spinoza  (all-God  and  akosmic)  virtually  destroyed  the  idea  of 
creation  (i.  e.  in  the  sense  of  Scripture  and  the  church.) 

4  Concerning  the  Pre-adamite  controversy,  see  §  248,  note  1. 

6  The  preservation  of  the  world  was  understood  as  a  Creatio  continua, 
perennis. — Melancthon  (in  Loc.  de  Creatione) :  Infirmitas  humana,  etiamsi 
cogitat  Deum  esse  conditorem,  tamen  postea  imaginatur,  ut  faber  discedit  a 
navi  exstructa,  et  relinquit  earn  nautis,  ita,  Deum  discedere  a  suo  opere,  et 
relinqui  creaturas  tantum  proprise  gubernationi. . .  .  Adversus  has  dubitationes 
confirmandse  sunt  mentes  cogitatione  vera  articuli  de  creatione,  ac  statuen- 
dum  est  non  solum  conditas  esse  res  a  Deo,  sed  etiam  perpetuo  servari  et~ 
sustentari  a  Deo  rerum  substantias.  Adest  Deus  suae  creaturae,  sed  non 
adest  ut  stoicus  Deus,  sed  ut  agens  liberrimum,  sustentans  creaturam,  et  sua 
immensa  misericordia  moderans,  dans  bona,  adjuvans  aut  impediens  causas 
secundas.  So,  too,  Zwingle  (Opera,  iii.,  p.  156) :  Et  natura,  quid  aliud  est, 
quam  continens  perpetuaque  Dei  operatio  rerumque  omnium  dispositio  ? 

6  In  reference  to  the  object  of  providence,  distinctions  were  made  between 
providentia  generalis,  specialis  and  specialissima ;  in  reference  to  the  order 
of  nature  between  naturalis  (ordinaria,  mediata),  and  snpernaturalis  (mira- 
culosa,  immediata)  ;t  in  reference  to  the  moral  actions  of  men  between  per¬ 
mittees,  impediens,  dirigens,  limitans,  etc.  The  old  divines,  Hutter ,  Gerhard , 

*  By  creature  he  understands  in  this  place  the  believer,  and  not  the  world. 

f  Concerning  the  idea  of  miracle,  see  Rase,  Hutterus  Redivivus,  pp.  160,  161. 


§  265.  Angels  and  Demons  (Devils). 


341 


Calov ,  divided  the  providence  of  God,  simply  into  the  two  acts  of  conservatio 
and  gubernatio.  To  these  Quenstadt  added  as  the  third  act,  the  concursus 
Dei  ad  secundas  causas  (. Heppe ,  p.  316),  defining  it  as  the  actus,  quo  libertas 
agendi  hominibus  conservatur:  thus  in  Qu.  i.,  p.  231,  concerning  the  actus 
providentim,  quo  Deus  influxu  generali  in  actiones  et  effectus  causarum  secun- 
darum,  qua  tales,  immediate  et  simul  cum  cis  et  juxta  indigentiam  et  exigen- 
tiam  uniuscujusque  suaviter  influit. — In  the  language  of  philosophers  this 
system,  developed  by  Cartesius,  Malebranche,  and  Bayle,  was  termed  the  sys¬ 
tem  of  Occasionalism.  On  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church  as  to  Prov¬ 
idence,  see  Heppe ,  i.  31 7  sq.  [The  distinction  of  the  Reformed  from  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  is  seen  in  Wendelin's  statement,  that  God  concurs  with 
human  acts,  constituendo  fines,  et  in  eos  dirigendo  actiones  causarum,  etiam 
fines  illos  per  se  non  intendentium,  ibid.,  p.  326.] 

7  Essai  de  Theodieee  sur  la  Bonte  de  Dieu,  la  Liberte  de  l’Homme  et 
l’Origine  du  Mai.  Amst.  1710,  ii.  parts  12mo,  often  republished.  The 
system  of  Optimism. 


§  265. 

ANGELS  AND  DEMONS  (DEVILS). 

Protestants  as  well  as  Roman  Catholics1 *  continued  to  rest  their 
faith  in  the  real  existence  both  of  angels  and  demons  on  the  author¬ 
ity  of  Scripture,  and  to  believe  in  the  power  of  the  devil  as  some¬ 
thing  which  still  manifests  itself  in  the  life  of  men.3  In  the 
symbolical  books  only  a  passing  reference  was  occasionally  made  to 
these*  doctrines,3  while  the  theologians  here  again  adopted  and 
carried  out  the  definitions  of  the  scholastics.4 *  Christian  Thomasius 
and  Balthasar  Behker ,  combated  the  belief  in  the  devil  as  well  as 
that  in  witches  ;  but  the  former  only  cautiously  rejected  the  opinion 
that  the  devil  still  exerts  a  physical  influence  upon,  men, 6 * 8  while  the 
latter,  more  bold  and  daring,  represented  his  existence  itself  as  very 
doubtful.6 

1  There  was  only  this  difference  between  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics, 

that  the  latter  added  the  invocation  of  the  angels.  Comp.  §  257,  note  2. 

The  Protestants  did  not  allow  this,  although  they  believed  that  the  angels 

interceded  for  us.  Apology  of  Augsb.  Conf.,  p.  311  ;  Wirtem.  Conf.,  p.  526 

(in  Heppe ,  p.  329):  Angeli  pro  nobis  sunt  solliciti.  Luther  also  believed  in 

guardian  angels,  but  without  making  it  a  dogma ;  Heppe,  p.  330.  Socinians 

(like  the  older  divines)  held  that  angels  were  created  before  the  rest  of  crea¬ 
tions,  see  Foclc,  p.  484. 

8  On  Luther’s  diabology,  which  sometimes  borders  on  a  Manichean  dual¬ 
ism,  see  SchenJcel ,  ii.  133  sq.  He  even  once  calls  the  devil  a  “god,”  (Wi¬ 
der  die  Tiirken,  in  Walch,  xx.  2661).  His  conflicts  with  him  are  well  known, 
as  also  his  bold  confronting  of  him.  Among  other  things  he  ascribes  ubi¬ 
quity  to  the  devil :  “  He  can  be  in  a  whole  city,  and  again  in  a  box  or  nut* 


342 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


shell”  (see  his  Grosse  Bekenntniss  von  Abendmahl,  in  Walch,  xx.  1187.)—  Me- 
la.ncthon  speaks  of  the  angels  in  the  edition  of  the  Loci  of  1535,  at  the  end 
(Corp.  Ref.,  xxi.  p.  558) ;  in  the  edition  of  1543  in  the  first  Appendix  (de 
Conjugio.)  Calvin  and  Zwingle  did  not  trouble  themselves  so  much  with 
the  question  of  Satanic  agency,  as  Luther  :  see  Henry ,  Leben  Calvins,  h,  p. 
488  ss.  Schenkel,  ii.  146,  156  sq. — Various  rites  were  also  observed  at  the 
exorcism,  or  ceremony  of  casting  the  devil  out  of  persons  to  be  baptized.* — 
The  trials  of  witches  are  full  proof  of  the  belief  then  prevailing  in  the  con¬ 
tinuance  of  demoniacal  agency.  Comp,  on  the  whole  section,  Heppe,  p.  333 

sq.  [Hyperius  speaks  of  angels  as  ignitae  naturae - indolem  quandam 

igneam  illis  inesse,  Scriptura  significat.] 

3  E.  g.  Comp.  Helv.  II.,  Art.  7.  For  further  particulars,  see  Neudecker , 

p.  365. 

*  4  Compare  the  passages  quoted  by  Hase  (Hutterus  Redivivus,  p.  183  ss.) 

horn  the  works  of  Holla z  and  others.  These  scholastic  definitions  went  be¬ 
yond  what  the  reformers  held  on  the  simple  foundation  of  Scripture  ;  thus 
Calvin  asks :  De  tempore  vel  ordine  quo  creati  fuerint  (Angeli)  contentio- 
nem  movere  nonne  pervicaciae  magis  quam  diligentiae  est?  Inst,  i.,  c.  14. 
Nevertheless  Heidegger,  a  Calvinistic  theologian,  filled  20  pages  folio  with 
his  Hreviarium  de  Angelis  !  p.  279—300. 

5  In  his  “  Erinnerungen  wegen  seiner  kuntftigen  Wintervorlesungen,” 
1702,  quoted  by  SchrdcJc ,  Allgemeine  Biographie,  v.  p.  349.  He  denied 
that  the  devil  has  horns,  paws  and  claws,  or  at  all  corresponds  to  the  ordi¬ 
nary  representations  of  him.  Nor  did  he  admit  that  the  doctrine  concerning 
the  devil  is  the  corner  stone  of  Christianity,  which  being  removed,  the  whole 
edifice  must  fall. 

c  Bekker,  in  his  work,  Die  bezauberte  Welte,  by  combating  the  belief  of 
the  age  in  witches,  etc.,  was  led  to  inquire  into  the  manner  in  which  the 
Scriptural  accounts  of  apparitions  of  angels,  as  well  as  of  the  influences  ex¬ 
erted  by  the  devil  upon  man,  are  to  be  understood.  Though  he  frequently 
explained  away  by  arbitrary  exegesis  what  did  not  agree  with  his  own  opin¬ 
ions,  he  correctly  exposed  in  other  places  the  false  consequences  which  the 
advocates  of  a  subtle  scholasticism,  no  less  than  of  vulgar  superstition,  inferred 
from  the  misinterpretation  of  certain  passages.  He  endeavoured  in  particu¬ 
lar  to  show  that  Scripture,  so  far  from  establishing  a  doctrine  concerning 
angels  and  devils,  speaks  of  them  only  occasionally,  without  fully  enlighten¬ 
ing  us  on  their  nature,  as  little  as  it  gives  complete  information  respecting 
the  Crethi  and  Plethi,  the  Urim  and  Thummim.  See  Book  ii.,  c.  8,  §  2. 

“  God  did  not  intend  to  instruct  us  concerning  the  angels ,  but  concerning 
ourselves ”  (§  8).  This  is  the  case  also  with  the  demons :  “  Neither  the 
Saviour,  nor  his  apostles,  inform  us,  how  the  devils  fell,  but  at  most,  that 
they  fell. . .  .this  we  should  consider  sufficient”  (c.  9,  §  1).  “And  as  regards 
natural  things  [metaphysics],  Scripture  is  not  designed  to  teach  us  how 
they  are  in  themselves,  but  it  commands  us  to  contemplate  them  for  the 

*  Bekker  also  observes  (Die  bezauberte  Welt,  p.  112),  that  the  opinions  of  the  Lutherans 
concerning  the  devil  resemble  the  views  of  the  Papists  much  more  than  those  of  the  Cal¬ 
vinists. 


§  265.  Angels  and  Demons  (Devils.) 


343 


glory  of  God,  and  the  salvation  of  man”  (c.  10,  §  15.) — In  reference  to  the 
angels ,  the  final  result  of  his  inquiries  is,  that  they  are  real  beings,  and  that 
God  employs  them  in  his  service  ;  but  they  exert  no  direct  influence  upon 
the  soul  and  body  of  man  (c.  15,  §  9).  He  rejects  the  existence  of  guardian 
angels  (c.  16.) — Respecting  the  devil  many  things  are  not  to  be  understood 
literally,  but  figuratively,  e.  g.  the  history  of  our  Lord’s  temptation  (Matt, 
iv.),  which  he  explains  as  “  an  interchange  of  dangerous  thoughts.”  (c.  21, 
§  17.)  But  there  are  also  other  passages  which  do  not  support  the  common 
theory.  In  ch.  26,  he  discusses  the  difference  between  Satan  and  his  associ¬ 
ates;  in  ch.  27,  he  explains  the  demoniacal  possessions  as  diseases  which 
“  affected  the  brain,”  and  in  which  the  disease  itself  was  confounded  with  the 
devil ;  in  support  of  his  view  he  was  of  course  led  to  suppose  (ch.  28)  that 
Jesus  “  accommodated  himself  to  the  prejudices  of  the  people.” — What 
else  Scripture  tells  us  concerning  the  devil,  “ mag  easily  be  ref  erred  to  iviclced 
men ”  (ch.  31.)  This  much  at  least  is  to  him  evident,  “that  the  devil  is  of 
less  consequence  than  people  generally  believe”  (c.  32,  §  1.)  “  Let  man 

examine  his  conscience ,  and  there  he  will  find  the  true  beginning ,  the  fountain 
and  source  of  all  his  troubles  and  miseries ”  (ch.  36,  §  18).  He  admonishes 
men  to  fear  God  instead  of  fearing  the  devil,  and  thinks  that  by  lowering  the 
power  of  the  devil  he  “the  more  elevates  the  wisdom  and  might  of  the 
Saviour.”  (§  22.) 


SECOND  DIVISION. 


CHKISTOLOG-Y  AND  SOTERIOLOGY. 

(INCLUDING  THE  DOCTRINE  CONCERNING  BAPTISM  AND  THE 

ESCHATOLOGY.) 

§  266. 

THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 

A.  K  Weisse ,  Die  Christologie  Luther’s,  Lpz.,  1852,  2te  AufL,  1855.  Schneckenbwrger, \ 
Die  orthodoxe  Lehre  yom  doppelten  Stande  Christi,  nach  lutherischer  und  reformir- 
ter  Fassung,  Pforzheim,  1848;  ccfmp.  Zeller’s  Jahrbiicher,  1844.  {J.  A.  Dorner, 

History  of  the  Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ.  Transl.  by  Dr. 
W.  Simon ,  vol.  i.,  Edinb.  18G1.] 

Not  merely  tlie  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
but  also  that  of  the  two  natures  of  Christ,  remained  unaffected  by 
the  contests  between  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics.1  In  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  Communicatio  idiomatum  and  the  Unio  personalis , 
however,  a  deep  rooted  difference  of  opinion  arose  between  Luther¬ 
ans  and  Calvinists,  in  connection  with  the  controversy  concerning 
the  sacraments.  And  here  old  reminiscences  about  the  strife  between 
Nestorianism  and  Eutychianism  were  revived  ;2  while  among  the  sects 
various  notions  respecting  the  person  of  Christ  made  their  appear¬ 
ance.  Thus  Caspar  Schwenkfeld  revived  the  doctrine,  condemned 
as  Eutychian,  concerning  the  “  glorified  and  deified  flesh ”  of  Christ.8 
Melchior  Hofmann  and  Menno  Simonis ,  as  well  as  other  Anabap¬ 
tists,  supposed  (like  the  Yalentinians  in  the  first  period),  that  our 
Lord's  birth  was  a  mere  phantom.4  Michael  Servetus  maintained 
that  Christ  was  a  mere  man,  filled  with  the  divine  nature,  and  re¬ 
jected  all  further  distinctions  between  his  two  natures  as  unscriptu- 
ral  and  founded  upon  scholastic  definitions  alone.3  Faustus  Socinus 
went  so  far  as  to  return  in  full  to  the  view  entertained  by  the  Ebio- 
nites  and  Nazarenes,  since,  in  his  opinion,  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  by 
nature,  notwithstanding  his  supernatural  birth,  a  mere  man,  on 
whonrGod  bestowed  extraordinary  revelations,  and  elevated  him  to 
heaven  after  his  death,  and  to  whom  he  committed  the  government 
of  ,the  church  founded  by  him.6  The  mystics  in  general  and  the 


§  266.  The  Person  of  Christ. 


345 


Quakers  in  particular,  attached  less  importance  to  the  historical 
Christ,  than  to  the  manifestation  of  Christ  in  us,  though  they  were 
far  from  denying  the  former  ;  several  of  them  even  espoused  various 
Gnostic  theories  concerning  his  humanity  and  incarnation.7 

1  It  is  well  known  how  firmly  Luther  clung  to  the  doctrine  of  the  divin¬ 
ity  and  incarnation  of  Christ :  “  He  whom  the  universe  could  not  contain, 
lies  in  Mary’s  lap,”  etc.  Compare  his  Auslegung  des  Evangeliums  am  heili- 
gen  Christfest  (  Walch,  T.  11,  p.  171.  76.)  See  Dorner ,  pp.  192,  193.  He 
even  uses  such  expressions  as  these,  Mary  nursed  God ,  cradled  God ,  made 
pap  for  God:  see  Schenkel ,  i.  316  (reference  to  Walch,  xx.  1191,  where 
however,  the  passage  is  not  verbally  the  same).  So,  too,  he  did  not  scruple 
to  say,  God  suffered,  God  died.  Comp,  his  Letters  (De  Wette),  vi.  291,  (to 
Gross  of  Mitweida) :  Vera  ecclesia  credit,  non  tantum  humanam  naturam, 
sed  etiam  divinam  seu  verum  Deum  pro  nobis  passum  esse  et  mortuum.  Et 
quamquam  mori  sit  alienum  a  natura  Dei,  tamen  quia  natura  divina  sic  in- 
duit  naturam  humanam,  ut  inseparabiliter  conjunctae  sint  hse  duae  naturae, 
ita  ut  Christus  sit  una  persona  Deus  et  homo,  ut  quidquid  accidat  Deo  et  ho- 
mini,  ideo  fit,  ut  hae  duae  naturae  in  Christo  sua  idiomata  inter  se  eommuni- 
cent,  h.  e.  quod  unius  naturae  proprium  communicatur  quoque  alteri  propter 
inseparabilem  cohcerentiam,  ut  nasci,  pati,  mori,  etc.  sunt  humanae  naturae 
idiomata  seu  proprietates,  quarum  divina  natura  quoque  fit  particeps  propter 
inseparabilem  ill  am  et  tantum  fide  comprehensibilem  conjunctionem.  Itaque 
non  tantum  homo,  sed  etiam  Deus  concipitur,  nascitur  ex  Maria  Yirgine, 
patitur,  moritur.*  Zwingle  expresses  himself  more  soberly  and  scripturally 
when  he  says  that  Christ  “  was  born  without  sin  of  the  pure  Virgin  Mary,” 
and  that  he  was  M  both  true  man  and  true  God.”  In  Christ  alone  he  found 
redemption,  the  beginning  and  end  of  all  salvation  ;  see  his  Uslegung  des  5 
Artikels  (Works  i.  p.  187). — For  Calvin's  views  respecting  the  person  of 
Christ  see  his  Instit.,  Lib.  ii.,  c.  12  ss.,  especially  c.  14  (§  5  is  directed  against 
Servetus).  The  authors  of  the  symbolical  books  adopted  the  definitions  of 
the  oecumenical  symbols :  Conf.  Aug.,  p.  10 :  [Item  docent  quod  verbum, 
hoc  est,  Filius  Dei,  assumpserit  humanam  naturam  in  utero  beatse  Marise 
virginis,  ut  sint  duae  naturae,  divina  et  humana,  in  unitate  personae  insepe- 
rabiliter  conjunctae,  unus  Christus,  vere  Deus,  ut  vere  homo,  natus  ex  vir- 

gine  Maria . ]  Apolog.  p.  50,  Art.  Smalc.,  p.  303.  [Filius  ita  factus 

est  homo,  ut  a  Spiritu  Sancto  sine  virili  opere  conciperetur,  et  ex  Maria 
pura,  sancta,  semper  virgine  nasceretur.]  Catech.  Major,  p.  493,  ss.  Form. 
Concord.,  Art.  8.  De  persona  Christi,  p.  605,  ss. — Conf.  Bas.  I.,  Art.  4. 
Helv.  II.,  Art.  11.  Belg.  19.  Gal.  14,  Angl.  2.  Conf.  Remonstr.,  8.  3, 
etc.  With  this  agree  Catech.  Roman,  i.  3,  8,  iv.  5,  ss.,  and  the  symbols  of 
the  Greek  Church. 

a  Concerning  the  connection  between  the  said  difference  and  the  contro¬ 
versy  respecting  the  sacraments,  see  Dorner ,  1st  ed.,  p.  166;  Schenkel,  i. 
223;  Ebrard,  ii.  635  ;  Schneckenburger,  31  sq. ;  it  was  not  merely  acci¬ 
dental.  The  difference  consisted  in  this,  that  the  Calvinists  tenaciously  re- 

*  The  passage  adduced  in  proof  from  Romans  i.,  has  not  God  (absolutely)  for  its  subject, 
but  the  Son  of  God. 


346  Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 

tained  the  doctrine  of  two  natures  in  one  person,  and  therefore  confined  the 
human  nature  of  the  Redeemer  to  heaven  (i.  e.  as  his  present  abode),  while 
the  Lutherans  supposed  (on  the  basis  of  the  TTepix&prjoig  of  John  Damasce- 
nus)  a  real  communication  of  one  nature  to  the  other,  on  which,  they 
rested  their  belief  in  the  ubiquity  of  Christ’s  body.  “  Where  you  put  God,” 
says  Luther ,  “there  you  must  put  the  humanity  (of  Christ)  :  they  can  not  be 
sundered  aud  riven  ;  it  is  one  person,  and  the  humanity  is  not  to  be  separated, 
as  master  Jack  draws  off  his  coat  and  lays  it  aside,  when  he  goes  to  bed. . . . 
The  humanity  is  more  closely  united  with  God,  than  is  our  skin  with  our 
flesh,  yea,  more  intimately  than  body  and  soul.” — Zwingle  in  order  to  set 
aside  such  Scriptures  as  appeared  favourable  to  this  view,  had  recourse  to 
what  is  called  the  Alloeosis  *  concerning  which  he  expressed  himself  as  fol¬ 
lows  (Exeges.  Euch.  Negot.  Opera,  iii.  p.  525) :  Est  alloeosis,  quantum  hue 
attinet,  desultus  vel  transitus  ille,  aut  si  mavis  permutatio,  qua  de  altera  in 
Christ!  natura  loquentes  alterius  vocibus  utimur.  Ut  cum  Christus  ait ; 
Caro  mea  vere  est  cibus,  caro  proprie  est  humanse  in  illo  naturae,  attamen  per 
commutationem  h.  1.  pro  divina  ponitur  natura.  Qua  ratione  enim  filius  Dei 
est,  ea  ratione  est  animae  cibus ....  Rursus  cum  perhibet  filium  familias  a 
colonis  trucidandum,  cum  filius  familias  divinitatis  ejus  nomen  sit,  pro  humana 
tamen  natura  accipit;  sec.  enim  istam  mori  potuit,  sec.  divinam  mimine. 
Cum,  inquam,  de  altera  natura  praedicatur,  quod  alterius,  id  tandem  est  alloeo¬ 
sis  aut  idiomatum  communicatio  aut  commutatio.  [The  meaning  of  alloeosis 
in  this  connection,  is,  that  the  identification  of  the  two  natures  is  only  figu¬ 
rative  and  nominal.]  Comp,  the  “  Wahrhaftiges  Bekenntniss  der  Diener 
der  Kirche  von  Zurich,  1545,”  quoted  by  Winer ,  p.  68 :  Christ’s  true  human 
body  was  not  deified  (after  his  ascension  into  heaven)  together  with  his  ra¬ 
tional  human  soul,  i.  e.  transformed  into  God,  but  only  glorified.  But  this 
glorification  did  not  annul  the  essence  of  the  human  body,  it  only  freed  it 
from  its  weakness,  and  rendered  the  body  glorious,  shining,  and  immortal. f 
Conf.  Helv.  II.  11 :  Non  docemus,  veritatem  corporis  Christ!  a  clarificatione 
desiisse,  aut  deificatam  adeoque  sic  deificatam  esse,  ut  suas  proprietates,  quoad 
corpus  et  animam,  deposuerit  ac  prorsus  in  naturam  divinam  abierit  unaque 
duntaxat  substantia  esse  cceperit.  Comp.  Conf.  Gall.  15.,  Angl.  19  ss.,  Belg. 
19,  and  other  passages  quoted  by  Winer,  p.  69.  Heidelb.  Catechism,  Qu. 
47 :  “  But  will  Christ  not  be  with  us  to  the  end  of  the  world,  as  he  has  pro¬ 
mised  ?  Answ.  Christ  is  true  man  and  true  God.  He  is  not  now  on  earth 
according  to  his  human  nature,  but  his  divinity,  majesty,  mercy,  and  spirit, 

*  Luther  in  his  Grosses  Bekenntniss  (Walch,  xx.,  p.  1180,  81),  called  the  Alloeosis,  the 
devil’s  mask,  and  the  old  witch,  mistress  Reason,  its  grandmother :  he  then  continues : 
“We  here  condem  and  curse  the  alloeosis  to  hell  itself,  as  the  devil’s  own  suggestion.” 
He  would  prefer  the  term  synecdochy  to  the  word  alloeosis.  But  he  will  allow  neither 
the  one  nor  the  other  to  militate  against  the  theory  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ’s  body,  p. 
1185. 

f  In  opposition  to  this  idea  of  Christ’s  body  being  confined  to  heaven,  Luther  observed 
(Walch,  xx.,  p.  1000),  that  it  was  a  childish  notion:  “In  the  same  manner  we  used  to 
represent  heaven  to  children  with  a  golden  throne  in  it,  and  Christ  seated  on  the  right 
hand  of  his  Father,  clothed  in  a  surplice,  and  wearing  a  golden  crown  on  his  head,  as  we 
often  see  in  pictures.”  Zwingle  earnestly  protested  against  this. 


§  266.  The  Person  of  Christ. 


347 


never  forsake  us.  Qu.  48  :  But  are  the  two  natures  not  then  separated  from 
each  other,  so  that  the  human  nature  is  not  in  all  places  where  the  divine 
is  ?  Answ.  By  no  means  :  for,  as  the  latter  is  incomprehensible  and  every¬ 
where  present,  it  follows,  that  though  it  may  exist  out  of  the  human  nature 
which  it  has  assumed,  it  nevertheless  exists  as  much  in  it,  and  remains  per¬ 
sonally  united  with  it.” 

The  difference  between  the  Lutheran  and  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  is  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  Form.  Concord,  p.  767  :  Postquam  Christus  non  communi 
ratione,  ut  alius  quispium  sanctus,  in  coelos  ascendit,  sed  ut  Apostolus  (Eph. 
iv.  10)  testatur,  super  omnes  coelos  ascendit,  et  revera  omnia  implet  et  ubique 
non  tantum  ut  Deus,  verum  etiam  ut  homo,  prsesens  dominatur  et  regnat  a 
mari  ad  mare,  et  usque  ad  terminos  terrse,  quemadmodum  olim  prophet®  de 
ipso  sunt  vaticinati,  et  apostoli  (Marc.  xvi.  20)  testantur,  quod  Christus  ipsis 
ubique  cooperatus  sit,  et  sermonem  ipsorum  sequentibus  signis  confirmaverit. 
The  right  hand  of  God  is  everywhere  :  Non  est  certus  aliquis  et  circum- 
scriptus  in  coelo  locus,  sed  nihil  aliud  est,  nisi  omnipotens  Dei  virtus,  qu® 
coelurn  et  terram  implet.-— The  unio  personalis  does  not  merely  consist  in 
this,  that  they  (viz.  the  two  natures  of  Christ)  have  the  same  appellations  in 
common,  but  it  is  essential;  p.  768:  [Et  ex  hoc  fundamento,  cujus  jam 
facta  est  mentio,  et  quod  uuio  personalis  docet,  quomodo  videlicet  divina  et 
humana  natura  in  persona  Christi  sint  unit®,  ut  non  modo  nomina  communia, 
sed  realiter  etiam  et  re  ipsa  inter  se,  sine  omni  confusion e  et  ex®quatione 
essentiarum,  communicent,  promanat  etiam  doctrina  ilia  de  communicatione 
idiomatum  duarum  in  Christo  naturarum,  de  quo  infra  aliquid  amplius  dice- 
tur.]  Lest  they  might  be  charged  with  monophysitic  errors,  the  authors  of 
the  Form.  Cone,  added,  p.  778  :  [Et  quidem  eis  vocabulis  (realis  communi- 
catio,  realiter  communicari)  nunquam  ullam  physicam  communicationem, 
vel  essentialem  transfusionem  (qua  natur®  in  suis  essentiis,  aut  essentialibus 
proprietatibus  confunderentur)  docere  voluminus,  ut  quidam  vocabula  et 
phrases  illas  astute  et  malitiose  falsa  interpretatione,  contra  consentiam  suam, 
pervertere  nondubitarunt. . .  .sed  vocabula  et  phrases  illos  verbal!  communica¬ 
tion!  opposuimus,  cum  quidam  fingerent,  communicationem  idiomatum  nihil 
aliud,  nisi  phrasin  et  modum  quendam  loquendi,  hoc  est,  mere  tantum  verba, 
nomina,  et  titulos  inanes  esse.]  Nor  is  the  unio  hypostatica  merely  external 
and  mechanical :  quasi  du®  ill®  natur®  eo  modo  unit®  sint,  quo  duo  asseres 
conglutinanturr  ut  realiter,  seu  re  ipsa  et  vere,  nullam  prorsus  communica- 
tionem  inter  se  habeant  (p.  764)  ;  on  the  other  hand  the  effusio  of  the  di¬ 
vine  nature  into  the  human  is  not  so,  quasi  cum  vinum  aqua  aut  oleum  de 
uno  vaso  in  aliud  transfunditur  (p.  780.)  The  Roman  Catholics,  so  far  from 
adopting  the  doctrine  of  the  unio  hypostatica,  rejected  it.  Thus,  Forer , 
Gregory  of  Valentia ,  and  Petavius.  Comp.  Cotta ,  Dissert,  de  Christo  Re- 
demtore,  in  Gerhard ,  Loci  Theolog.  T.  iv.  p.  57.  [“The  real  difference 
between  the  two  is  this,  that  the  one  put  the  substantial  self  of  the  person 
of  Christ  in  the  divine  part  of  his  essence,  the  other  in  the  human.  Hence, 
the  one  held  that  Christ  must  be,  even  in  bodily  presence,  wherever  he  was 
as  a  divine  being,  and  the  other,  that  the  real  Christ  could  be  only  where  his 
body  was.”  “  The  Reformed  maintained,  that  the  divine  properties  could 
be  attributes  of  the  human  nature  only  so  far  as  the  limits  of  the  finite  al- 


348 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


lowed ;  that  no  nature  could  combine  contradictory  properties,  could  be  at 
the  same  time  finite  and  infinite.  The  general  canon  at  the  basis  of  the 
Reformed  Christology  is — finitum  non  est  capax  infiniti.”  JBaur ,  Dogmen- 
gesch.  321-2.] 

9  Christology  forms  the  centre  of  the  system  of  Schwenkfeld.  Among 
his  writings,  he  develops  his  views  especially  in  the  following :  Qusestiones 
vom  Erkantnus  Jesu  Christi  und  seiner  Glorien,  1561. — Von  der  Speyse  des 
ewigen  Lebens,  1547. — Vom  Worte  Gottes,  dass  kein  ander  Wort  Gottes  sei, 
eigentlich  zu  reden,  denn  der  Sohn  Gottes,  Jesus  Christus. — He  defended 
himself  against  the  imputation  of  destroying  the  humanity  of  Christ,  but 
asserted,  that  Christ’s  human  nature  in  its  glorified  state  ought  to  be  called 
divine .  Accordingly  in  his  opinion  “  the  flesh  of  Christ  is  not  that  of  a 
creature :  for  it  is  not  derived  from  God  in  the  same  manner  as  God  is  the 
creator  of  all  that  is  bodily,  but  in  a  higher  manner;  as  regards  other  men, 
God  creates  them  outside  of  himself,  but  not  so  Christ.”  On  this  account 
Christ  is  the  natural  'Son  of  God  (also  according  to  his  humanity) ;  for 
“God. not  only  imparted  his  Word  to  the  man  Christ,  and  united  it  with  his 
flesh,  but  from  the  beginning  he  also  bestowed  upon  him  his  own  nature, 
being,  and  independence,  divine  treasures  and  riches.”  (Vom  Fleisch  Christi, 
p.  140-46,  Dorner ,  pp.  207,  208.)  All  that  by  which  Christ  is  David’s 
son,  is  laid  aside  and  lost  (in  his  divine  nature)  ;  his  whole  nature  is  renewed 
and  deified  (Ibid.  p.  176,  Dorner,  p.  210.)  Nevertheless  he  rejected  the 
idea  of  a  twofold  body  of  Christ,  but  admitted  only  one  flesh — viz.,  the 
mortal  flesh  of  Mary  assumed  by  him :  “  this  mortal  jlesh,  however ,  is,  in  his 
opinion,  not  the  nature ,  but  only  the  temporal  form  of  Christ's  flesh  in  his 
state  of  humiliation  ;  but  he  does  not  succeed  in  giving  us  a  clear  idea  of 
what  he  means .  We  shall  best  understand  him,  if  we  suppose,  that,  though 
the  fl.es h  of  Christ  has  a  twofold  origin — viz.  on  the  one  hand  in  the  divine 
nature,  on  the  other  in  the  flesh  of  Mary,  yet  it  is  essentially  only  one,  inasmuch 
as  it  may  be  considered  in  a  twofold  aspect — viz.  as  divine  and  as  hnman." 
Dorner,  1.  c.  “  In  his  struggle  after  a  clear  exhibition  of  his  views ,  we  ought 
not  to  overlook  the  truly  speculative  element ,  which  manifests  itself  in  his 
attempt  to  overcome  the  separation  of  the  divine  and  the  human''  Ibid.  p. 
213.  Schwenkfeld  formally  protests  (see  Frbkam ,  455)  against  the  identifi¬ 
cation  of  his  doctrine  with  that  of  Valentinus,  Marcion,  etc.,  or  with  that  of 
the  Anabaptist,  Melchior  Hofmann.  On  his  (polemical)  relation  to  Sebas¬ 
tian  Frank,  who  taught  that  the  seed  of  God  is  in  all  the  elect  from  youth, 
and  thus  abolished  the  specific  difference  between  Christ  and  other  men,  see 
ibid.  p.  447.  Schwenkfeld  opposes  both  Docetism  and  Ebionitism  :  “  Both 
errors  are  from  one  truth,  as  the  spider  sucks  poison  from  a  noble  flower” 
(Epist.  i.  292  ;  in  Frbkam,  448).  He  is  most  earnest  in  maintaining  the 
undivided  oneness  of  the  person  of  Christ,  which  did  not  seem  to  him  to 
be  enough  guarded  by  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  two  natures.  Comp.  G.  L. 
Hahn,  Schwenckfeldii  Sententia  de  Christi  Persona  et  Opere  exposita, 
Vratislav.  1847,  and  Frbkam ,  p.  443,  sq.  [“  Schwenkfeld’s  idea  is  that  of  a 
finite  nature,  which,  as  finite,  at  the  same  time  embraces  the  principle  of  the 
infinite.  This  finite  is  the  flesh  of  Christ,  so  far  forth  as,  in  itself  above 


§  266.  The  Person  of  Christ. 


349 


the  created,  it  is  glorified  and  deified JBaur ,  p.  320.  Comp.  Gieseler ,  iv. 
§33.  Baur's  Dreieinigkeit,  iii.  219,  244.] 

4  This  is  referred  to  in  the  Form.  Cone.  p.  828  :  Christum  carnem  et  san- 
guinem  suum  non  e  Maria  virgine  assumsisse,  sed  de  coelo  nttulisse.  Conf. 
Belg.  Art.  18.  On  Menno  Simonis ,  see  Schyn.  Plen.  Deduct,  p.  164.  At 
an  earlier  period  Melchior  Hofmann  (died  1532)  had  propounded  similar 
opinions.  Hofmann  laid  great  stress  upon  the  word,  eyevero ,  in  John  i.  : 
the  Logos  did  not  merely  assume  our  nature,  but  he  became  flesh,  hence 
his  blasphemous  expression :  Maledicta  sit  caro  Marise !  Comp.  Trechsel , 
pp.  34,  35. 

*  Comp.  §  263,  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;  and  the  work  of  Servetus , 
Christianismi  Restitutio,  1553.  Schlusselburg,  Catal.  Haeres.  Lib.  xi.  “It 
may  be  said  that  Michael  Servetus  developed  the  idea  of  SchwenTcfeld  more 
harmoniously ,  but  with  some  essential  modifications. . .  .Resting  on  a  panthe¬ 
istic  basis ,  he  could  say ,  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  was  consubstantial  with  God , 
but  the  same  would  be  true  in  reference  to  all Dorner ,  p.  215.  Never¬ 
theless  he  did  not  say  it  in  reference  to  all  flesh  :  “  In  his  opinion  Christ 
alone  is  the  Son  of  God,  nor  is  that  name  to  be  given  to  any  one  else .”  Ibid. 
He  calls  Christ  (in  distinction  from  all  other  men)  naturalis  filius,  ex  vera 
Dei  substantia  genitus,  De  Trinit.  i.  p.  13.  It  appears  to  us,  that  after  a 
candid  examination  of  his  theory,  more  would  be  found  in  it  than  “  a  mere 
divine  or  religious  glimmer ”  (Dorner,  p.  216)  shed  upon  the  person  of 
Christ,  though  we  admit  that  this  pantheistic  Unitarianism  might  easily  take 
a  deistic  direction  (ibid.  p.  217.)  ' 

6  Cat.  Racov.  p.  45  :  Quaenam  sunt,  quae  ad  Christi  personam  referuntur  ? 
Id  solum,  quod  natura  sit  homo  verus,  olim  quidem,  cum  in  terris  viveret, 
mortalis,  nunc  vero  immortalis.  Though  the  authors  of  this  Confession 
denied  (p.  46  of  the  last  edition)  that  Jesus  was  “purus  et  vulgaris  homo,” 
they  asserted  that  by  nature  he  was  mere  man,  but  the  only-begotten  Son  of 
God  from  the  moment  of  his  birth.  It  was  especially  to  Luke  i.  35,  that 
they  referred  in  support  of  their  opinion.  This  is  also  very  distinctly  stated 
by  Ostorodt ,  Unterr.  vi.48  :  “We  therefore  believe,  that  the  essentia  or  the 
nature  of  the  Son  of  God  was  none  other  than  the  essentia  of  a  man,  i .  e.,  a 
real  man,  nor  do  we  know  of  any  other  essentia  or  nature  in  him.  In  addi¬ 
tion  we  believe  that  he  had  a  different  beginning  from  all  other  men,  i.  e .,  that 
he  did  not  receive  his  beginning  and  origin  from  man,  but  from  God  him¬ 
self,  since  the  Virgin  Mary  conceived  him  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  i.  e.,  by  the 
power  of  God ;  on  which  account  he  was  also  to  be  called  the  Son  of  God. 
Therefore  he  is  God’s  Son,  even  his  only-begotten  Son,  from  the  beginning 
of  his  existence,  inasmuch  as  God  never  had  another  such  Son,  who  was 
conceived  in  the  womb,  and  born  by  his  own  power  ;  for  the  same  reason  he 
may  also  be  termed  God’s  real  Son,  because  he  was  neither  adopted,  nor  the 
son  of  any  one  else,  but  altogether  the  Son  of  God.” — Beside  his  supernatural 
birth,  the  Socinians  supposed  particular  transportations  to  heaven.  Cat. 
Rac.  p.  46 :  Qua  ratione  ipse  Jesus  ad  ipsius  divinse  voluntatis  notitiam  per- 
venit?  Ea  ratione,  quod  in  ccelum  ascenderit  ibique  patrem  suum  et  earn, 
quam  nobis  annunciavit,  vitam  et  beatitatem  viderit,  et  ea  omnia,  quae  docere 
deberet,  ab  eodem  patre  audierit :  a  quo  deinde  e  coelo  in  terram  dimissus, 


350 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Spir.  S.  immensa  copia  perfusus  fait,  cujus  afflatu  cun  eta,  quae  a  patre  didicit, 
perlocutus  est. — Here  again  we  have  an  instance  of  that  external  supernatu¬ 
ralism  which  is  more  easily  inclined  to  believe  in  miracles  than  in  the  great 
mystery ,  rather  in  revelations  which  Jesus  received  and  communicated  to 
men,  than  in  the  one  manifestation  of  God  in  the  flesh ;  rather  in  a  man 
who  has,  as  it  were,  become  God,  than  in  God  becoming  man !  “  The 

real  heart  of  the  Socinian  polemics  {against  orthodoxy)  in  all  its  windings, 
is  the  position  of  the  absolute  difference  between  the  infinite  and  the  finite 
God  and  man:”  Fock ,  p.  529,  comp,  the  whole  section,  p.  510,  sq.  And 
yet  they  conceded  that  divine  honor  is  due  to  Christ  since  his  ascension  : 
God  committed  to  him  power  over  all  things.  Socinianism  holds  fast  to  this 
notion  of  a  delegated  divinity.  Racovian  Catechism,  2,  120  :  Christus  vero, 
etsi  Deus  verus  sit,  non  est  tamen  ille  ex  se  unus  Deus,  qui  per  se  et  perfec- 
tissima  ratione  Deus  est,  quum  is  Deus  tantum  sit  Pater. — The  invocation  of 
Christ  is  allowed,  but  not  enjoined  ;  it  is  an  adiaphoron,  an  unessential.  See 
Foclc,  p.  536,  sq.,  543,  sq. 

7  Luther  himself  combined  with  the  orthodox  doctrine  concerning  the 
person  of  Christ,  which  obtained  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  also  the 
mystical  one  he  derived  from  the  work  already  mentioned.  Die  deutsche 
Theologie.  Comp.  Dorner,  p.  193. — [Theologia  Germanica,  Pfeiffer’s  edi¬ 
tion,  transl.  by  S.  Winkworth,  etc.,  Andover,  1856.]  “  All  of  Luther's 

preaching  about  Christ's  person  and  work  moves  in  the  sphere  of  concrete 
representations ,  like  nature ,  and  handles  these  with  such  living  power ,  always 
bringing  before  the  mental  vision  what  is  actual  and  essential,  as  prevents  the 
constraint  of  dogmas,  and  shows  the  poverty  of  mere  language  in  exhaust¬ 
ing  the  full  glory  of  the  divine  acts Gass,  p.  36.  Respecting  the  opin¬ 
ions  of  the  Quakers,  see  Barclay,  Apol.  Thes.  13,  2,  p.  288,  quoted  by 
Winer,  p.  71. — According  to  Weigel,  Christ  is  the  Divine  Spirit  in  man,  the 
Word,  the  divine  idea.  Incarnations  of  this  Word  took  place  prior  to  the 
time  of  Christ ;  thus  in  the  case  of  Adam,  Abraham,  etc.  He  also  supposed 
(like  the  Quakers)  two  bodies  of  Christ.  “  He  did  not  derive  his  flesh  and 
blood  from  the  mortal  virgin  or  from  Adam,  but  from  the  eternal  virgin 
through  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  order  that  we,  by  means  of  this  heavenly  flesh, 
might  be  made  new  creatures,  that  henceforth  we  might  not  be  earthy,  owing' 
our  existence  to  Adam,  but  heavenly,  being  created  by  Christ,  and  in  such 
flesh  possess  heaven.” ....  But  this  divine  body  was  invisible,  immortal. 
Christ,  in  order  that  he  might  dwell  among  us  on  earth,  and  do  us  good,  as¬ 
sumed  a  visible  body  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary ;  “  for  who  could 
exist  near  the  sun  if  it  were  among  men  upon  earth  ?”  Similar  views  were 
entertained  by  Jacob  JBdhme  and  Povret.  Concerning  the  former,  see  JBaur , 
Gnosis,  pp.  596-604,  and  the  passages  quoted  by  Wullen ;  respecting  the  lat¬ 
ter,  a  full  account  is  given  by  Dorner,  p.  231,  ss.,  note,  after  Poiret’s  Econ- 
omie  Divine  on  Systeme  Universel,  etc.,  v.  Tom.  Amsterd.,  1687.  According 
to  ch.  xi.  of  this  treatise,  the  (ideal)  Son  of  God  assumed  human  nature  soon 
after  the  creation  of  man,  and  prior  to  his  fall,  in  such  a  manner  that  he 
(the  Son  of  God)  took  from  Adam  his  body,  and  a  divine  soul.  Poiret  also 
ascribed  to  Christ,  previous  to  his  incarnation  in  the  Virgin  Mary,  not  only 
various  manifestations,  but  also  human  “  emotions  and  sufferings,”  and  an 


§  267.  Further  Development. 


351 


unwearying  intercession  for  mankind,  liis  brethren  (his  office  as  high-pnest). 
But  in  the  Virgin  Mary  he  assumed  mortal  flesh.  “  The  body  of  Jesus 
Christ,  assuming  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  is  as  little  com¬ 
posed  of  two  different  bodies,  as  a  white  and  shining  garment,  dipped  in 
a  vessel  dark  and. full  of  color,  and  coming  into  contact  with  the  matter 
which  composes  this  darkness,  is  thereby  changed  into  a  double  garment,  or 
into  two  garments  instead  of  one.”  (Comp.  SchwenJcfeld ,  note  3.) 


§  267. 

FURTHER  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT  AND  INTERNAL  CONTROVERSIES. 

Schneclceriburger,  Die  orthodoxe  Lehre  vom  doppelten  Stande  Christi,  etc.,  1848.  [Ibid., 
Vergleichende  Darstellung  des  lutherischen  und  reformirten  Lehrbegriffs,  ed.  Glider, 
1855.  Comp.  Schwcizer,  in  Theol.  Jahrb.,  1856,  and  Gass,  in  Studien  und  Kritiken, 
1851.] 

The  doctrine  respecting  Christ's  person  was  still  further  unfolded 
in  the  dogmatic  systems  of  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Church.1 
The  theologians  of  the  Lutheran  Church  developed  this  Locus  de 
persona  Christi,  by  distinguishing  between  three  different  genera  of 
the  communicatio  idiomatum ,a  which  were  brought  into  connection 
with  the  two  states  of  Christ's  exaltation  and  humiliation  (status 
exaltationis  et  inanitionis).3  To  this  they  added  the  presentation 
of  the  three  offices  of  Christ — viz.  the  prophetical,  #the  priestly,  and 
the  kingly  office.4  These  definitions  owed  their  origin  in  part  to 
temporary  controversies  within  the  Lutheran  Church,  such  as  the 
controversy  between  the  theologians  of  Giessen  and  those  of  Tubin¬ 
gen,  at  the  commencement  of  the  seventeenth  century,  concerning 
the  KEvcjoLg  and  KpvifjLg  of  the  divine  attributes,5  and  the  controversy 
carried  on  by  JEpinus,  in  a  previous  century,  respecting  the  Descen¬ 
sus  Christi  ad  inferos.6 

1  The  difference  between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  is  as  follows : 
(a).  The  Lutherans  made  a  distinction  between  incarnation  and  humiliation, 
while  the  Reformed  kept  both  together  in  one  conception.  (6.)  Conse¬ 
quently,  according  to  the  Lutherans,  the  conception  and  birth  of  the  God- 
man  is  an  act  of  his  own  will,  he  as  God-man  being  conceived  as  in  some 
way  preexistent ;  while  according  to  the  Reformed,  only  the  Xoyog  aoapicog 
preexisted,  and  as  such  assumed  humanity,  and  thus  the  God-man  came  to 
be.  (c.)  According  to  the  Lutherans,  the  God-man  in  virtue  of  the  unio  per¬ 
sonalis  is  received  into  the  Collegium  Trinitatis ,  and  has  part  in  all  divine 
properties ;  while  according  to  the  Reformed  the  Logos  continues  to  act,  as 
a  person  of  the  Trinity,  external  to  the  divine-human  personality.  This  had 
the  appearance,  as  though  the  Reformed  taught  that  there  was  only  a  grati- 
osa  inhabitatio  of  the  Logos  in  Christ ;  while  the  Lutherans,  did  not  escape 
the  accusation  of  Docetism.  See  SchnecJcenburger ,  ubi  supra,  and  the  next 
note.  [In  further  illustration  of  the  Reformed  doctrine,  compare  Olevianus , 


352 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


Feed.  Gratiae,  38  :  Unio  personalis  dnarum  naturarura  in  Christo  est  assump- 
tio  non  hominis  sed  humanse  naturae  in  unitatem  personae  aeterni  filii  Dei, 
salvis  utriusque  naturae  proprietatibus,  ita  ut  licet  naturae  hae  sint  diversissimae 
et  maneant  in  aeternum  suis  proprietatibus  distinctae  (quando  quidem  creator 
in  aeternum  vult  manere  distinctus  ab  omnibus  creaturis,  etiam  ab  ilia  massa, 
quam  assumpsit),  tamen  ita  sint  copulatae,  ut  ambae  hae  sint  unus  Christus. 
The  communicatio  idiomatum  (. Maastricht ,  v.  4,  12)  is  that  effect  of  the  per¬ 
sonal  union,  qua  proprietates  utriusque  naturae  coincidunt  in  una  eademque 
persona,  eoque  etiam  de  persona  enuntiantur.  Keckermann ,  315:  Humana 
Christi  natura  est  distinctum  individuum  a  natura  divina,  etsi  non  sit  distincta 
persona.  Wollebius,  66  :  Unionis  personalis  tria  sunt  effecta  :  communica¬ 
tio  idiomatum,  excellentia  naturae  humanae  ;  et  utriusque  naturae  in  operibus 
theandricis  cooperatio.  Comp.  Heppe,  Dogmatik  der  evang.  Reform.  Kirche, 
1861,  Locus  xvii.] 

2  1.  Genus  idiomaticum ,  according  to  which  both  natures  so  communicate 
their  properties  to  the  person  [of  Christ],  that  itself  has  both.  2.  Genus 
apotelesmaticum1  which  consists  in  this,  that  the  person  so  communicates 
itself  to  the  two  natures,  that  certain  works  which  belong  to  the  whole  per¬ 
son  (such  as  redeeming)  are  conferred  upon  one  nature  alone,  and  carried 
out  through  it.  3.  Genus  auchematicum  (majestaticum),  mutual  communi¬ 
cation  of  the  natures  to  each  other  by  means  of  the  communication  of  their 
properties.  But  inasmuch  as  the  divine  nature  can  neither  receive  anything 
from  the  human,  nor  suffer  any  loss,  we  can  only  speak  of  the  communica¬ 
tion  of  divine  properties  to  the  human  nature,  whence  the  name  (from 
avXVl [Jia)' — The  Genus  idiomaticum  itself  was  subdivided  into  three  species 
— viz. :  a.  dvridooeg  (alternatio)  ;  b.  a cotvcovia  rtiv  deluv ;  c.  Idionolrjotg. 
(On  the  defects  of  this  division,  see  Hase,  Hutterus  Redivivus,  p.  241.) 

3  The  theory  had  its  origin  in  the  controversy  mentioned  note  5,  and  was 
more  precisely  defined  by  the  theologians  of  Saxony  as  follows :  Status  ex- 
inanitionis  (humiliationis)  est  ea  Christi  conditio,  in  qua  sec.  humanum 
naturam,  in  unione  personali  consideratam,  a  majestatis  divinae  perpetuo  usu 
abstinuit  atque  obedientiam  usque  ad  mortem  praestitit.  Status  exaltationis, 
quo  Christus  sec.  humanum  naturam,  depositis  infirmitatibus  carnis,  plena- 
rium  divinm  majestatis  usum  obtinuit.  See  also  passages  from  Gerho.rd ,  in 
Gass ,  p.  2 76,  sq.  [ Gerhard ,  Tom.  iii.  p.  562-569  :  Exinanitio,  quam  apos¬ 
tolus  Christo  secundum  humanam  naturam  tribuit,  non  est  omnimodo  carentia 
vel  absentia  divinae  potentiae . . . .  sed  retractio  usus  et  intermissio,  qua 
Christus  homo  in  forma  servili  constitutus  et  infirmitate  tectus,  divinam  poten- 
tiam,  gloriam  et  majestatem  vere  et  realiter  sibi  communicatam  non  semper 
exseruit,  sed  retraxit  et  retinuit,  donee  tempus  exaltationis  sequeretur.  Comp. 
Schneckenburger ,  Zur  kirchlichen  Christologie,  p.  3.] — The  theologians  of 
the  Reformed  Church  simply  referred  the  two  states  to  the  two  natures. 
According  to  the  Lutherans,  the  birth  of  Christ,  his  circumcision,  his  sub¬ 
jection  to  his  parents,  his  intercourse  with  men  who  were  unworthy  of  it, 
his  sufferings,  death,  aud  burial,  belong  to  the  state  of  humiliation  ;  the 
Descensus  ad  inferos  (Art.  9  in  the  Form.  Concord,  directed  against  JEpinus 
and  the  Calvinists,  see  note  6),  his  resurrection  from  thp  dead,  his  ascension 
into  heaven,  and  sitting  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  belong  to  the  state 


§  267.  Further  Development, 


353 


of  exaltation. — On  the  contrary,  the  Calvinists,  denying  that  Christ  actually 
descended  to  hell,  and  interpreting  the  passages  bearing  upon  this  point  of  his 
mental  sufferings  and  dreadful  anguish,  or  as  an  equivalent  for  his  real  death, 
maintained  that  the  Descensus  ad  inferos  belongs  to  the  status  exinanitionis. 
See  SchnecJcenburger ,  ubi  supra,  second  division. 

4  The  Munus  propheticum  has  reference  to  Christ’s  office  as  a  teacher  and 
messenger  sent  by  God  to  reveal  his  will;  the  Munus  sacerdotale  has  respect 
to  his  atoning  death  (comp,  the  next  §),  and  priestly  intercession  (satisfactio 
et  intercessio) ;  the  object  of  the  Munus  regium  is,  in  the  first  instance,  the 
foundation  and  government  of  the  church  ;  but  it  also  includes  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  world ;  on  which  account  a  distinction  was  made  between  a 
kingdom  of  power  and  a  kingdom  of  grace  (the  heavenly  kingdom).  Ger¬ 
hard  :  Regnum  potentiae  est  general e  dominium  super  omnia,  videlicet 
gubernatio  cceli  et  terra?,  subjectio  omnium  creaturarum,  dominium  in  medio 
inimicorum,  quos  reprimit,  coercet  et  punit.  Regnum  gratiae  est  specialis 
operatio  gratiae  in  ecclesia,  videlicet  missio,  illuminatio  ac  conservatio  apos- 
tolorum,  doctorum  et  pastorum,  collectio  ecclesiae  per  praedicationem  evan- 
gelii  et  dispensation em  sacramentorum,  regeneratio,  etc.  Regnum  gloriae 
conspicietur  in  resuscitatione  mortuorum  et  universali  judicio  ejusque  execu- 
tione.  Comp.  Thummius  ( Theod .)  De  triplici  Christi  Officio.  Tub.  1627, 
4. — On  the  different  interpretation  of  the  Reformed,  see  SchnecJcenburger, 
3d  division.  In  particular,  the  Reformed  limited  the  regal  office  to  the  reg¬ 
num  gratiae.  (Prayers  to  Christ.)  JTThe  doctrine  of  the  three  offices  was 
taught  from  the  very  first  by  the  Reformed  divines,  while  the  Lutheran 
divines  for  a  long  time  spoke  of  only  two  offices,  the  regal  and  priestly. 
See  FLeppe,  Dogmatik  des  deutschen  Protest,  ii.  222.  Calvin,  Inst.  ii.  15,  1  : 
Tribus  parti  bus  constat  quod  ei  injunctum  a  patre  munus  fuit,  et  propheta 
datus  est,  et  rex,  et  sacerdos.] 

6  The  theologians  of  Tubingen  (Luke  Osiander ,  Theodore  Thummius, 
and  Melchior  Nicolai),  supposed  that  Christ,  during  his  state  of  humiliation, 
continued  to  possess  the  divine  properties  of  omnipotence,  omnipresence,  etc., 
but  concealed  them  from  men ;  the  divines  of  Giessen  (Menzer  and  Feuer- 
born)  asserted  that  he  voluntarily  laid  them  aside.  For  further  particulars, 
see  Dorner ,  p.  179,  ss.  Schrockh,  iv.  p.  970,  ss.  Comp.  Thummii  Tanei- 
voxnypacpia  sacra,  Tub.,  1623,  4,  and  Nicolai  Consideratio  Theolog.  IV. 
Quaestionum  controversarum  de  profundissima  icevdjoei  Christi,  ibidem  1622, 
4.  Gass,  p.  277. 

6  FEpinus  (John  Hock,  or  Hoch,  in  Greek,  alneivog,  died  1533),  in  a  criti¬ 
cism  published  in  1544,  on  an  exposition  of  Ps.  xvi.  by  his  colleague  Feder, 
(Hock’s  critique  published,  Francof.  1644),  taught  that  Christ’s  descent  to 
hell  belonged  to  his  state  of  humiliation,  because  his  soul  suffered  the  pun¬ 
ishments  of  hell,  while  his  body  remained  in  the  grave.  He  denied  that 
1  Pet.  iii.  18,  19,  has  a  reference  to  the  descensus  ad  inferos,  but  was  op¬ 
posed  by  his  colleagues  in  Hamburg.  Flacius  defended  Hock.  The  Formula 
Concordiae  cut  short  further  questions  by  declaring  the  article  in  question  to 
be  one,  qui  neque  sensibus,  neque  ratione  nostra  comprehendi  queat,  sola 
autem  fide  acceptandus  sit.  See  Planck,  v.  1,  p.  251,  ss.  Schrockh% 
1.  c.  p.  541.  ss. 


354 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


[The  Westminster  Confession  explains  the  Descensus  as  equivalent  to 
“remaining  under  the  power  of  death.”  Comp.  Larger  Catechism,  Qu.  50. 
The  XXXIX.  Articles,  Art.  3  :  “As  Christ  died  for  us,  and  was  buried,  so 
also  it  is  to  be  believed  that  he  went  down  into  hell.”  The  Article  as 
published  under  King  Edward  was  much  fuller,  adding,  “For  the  body 
of  Christ  lay  in  the  sepulchre  until  the  resurrection  ;  but  his  ghost  depart¬ 
ing  from  him,  was  with  the  ghosts  which  were  in  prison,  or  in  hell,  and 
did  preach  to  the  same,  as  the  place  of  St.  Peter  doth  testify.”  See  Bur¬ 
net,  pp.  69-73.  Pearson  on  Creed,  pp.  333-371.  The  latter  says,  “though 
his  body  was  dead,  yet  his  soul  died  not ;  and  though  it  uied  not,  yet  it 
underwent  the  condition  of  the  souls  of  such  as  die  ;  and  being  he  died  in 
the  similitude  of  a  sinner,  his  soul  went  to  the  place  where  souls  of  men  are 
kept  who  die  for  their  sins,  and  so  did  wholly  undergo  the  law  of  death ; 
but  because  there  was  no  sin  in  him,  and  he  had  fully  satisfied  for  the  sins 
of  others,  which  he  took  upon  him,  therefore  as  God  suffered  not  the  Holy 
One  to  see  corruption,  so  he  left  not  his  soul  in  hell,  and  thereby  gave  suffi¬ 
cient  security  to  all  those  who  belong  to  Christ,  of  never  coming  under  the 
power  of  Satan,  or  suffering  in  the  flames  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his 
angels.”] 

§  268. 

* 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

*  Weisse,  M.  Lutherus,  quid  de  Consilio  Mortis  et  Resurrectionis  Christi  senserit.  Lips., 
1845. — [ Schneider ,  The  Lutheran  Doctrine  of  Christ’s  Vicarious  Death,  transl.  from 
Studien  und  Kritiken,  in  British  and  Foreign  Evang.  Review,  Jan.  1861.  Jas.  JR. 
Wilson,  Hist.  Sketch  of  Opinions  on  the  Atonement,  Phil.,  1817. — Stillingfleei  (Bishop 
of  Worcester),  Two  Discourses  concerning  the  Doctrine  of  Christ’s  Satisfaction  (against 
Socinians  and  Afttinomians.)  London,  1697,  1700.  Grotian  theory  of  the  Atone¬ 
ment,  by  F.  0.  Baur ,  translated  by  L.  Swain,  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  ix.  259-272.] 

As  Protestants  and  Koman  Catholics  agreed  in  resting  their  doc¬ 
trines  concerning  theology  and  christology  on  the  basis  of  the  oecu¬ 
menical  symbols  [the  Apostles’  Creed,  the  Nicene,  and  the  Athana- 
sian],  so  they  espoused  in  common  the  doctrine  of  atonement  as 
given  in  Anselm’s  theory  of  satisfaction,1  only  with  this  differ¬ 
ence,  that  (in  connection  with  other  principles)  the  Protestants  gave 
the  preference  to  that  aspect  of  this  theory  presented  by  Thomas 
Aquinas,  while  the  Roman  Catholics,  on  the  contrary,  were  favor¬ 
able  (at  least  in  part),  to  the  scheme  of  Duns  Scotus.2  The  Protes¬ 
tant  theologians,  however,  further  developing  the  doctrine  of  An¬ 
selm,  carried  their  definitions  sharply  out  on  two  points.  On  the 
one  hand,  they  so  extended  the  idea  of  vicarious  suffering,  as  to  make 
it  include  the  divine  curse  (mors  aeterna)3 — an  opinion  which  was 
combated  by  the  divines  of  the  Romish  Church.4  On  the  other  hand, 
they  insisted  upon  the  active  obedience  of  Christ,  together  with  the 


§  268.  The  Doctrine  of  Atonement. 


355 


passive,  referring  the  former  to  the  complete  obedience  which  he 
yielded  to  the  law.5  Both  opinions  were  intimately  connected  with 
the  Protestant  doctrine  of  justification.  But  while  the  advocates  of 
orthodox  Protestantism  carried  the  doctrine  of  Anselm  to  such  an 
extreme  in  one  direction,  as  to  weaken  it  on  the  other  side,6  the  ad¬ 
herents  of  the  negative  system  of  Socinus ,  and  those  of  like  tenden¬ 
cies,  endeavoured  by  dialectical  reasoning  to  dissolve  the  whole 
theory,  and  to  explain  away  its  Scriptural  basis.7  By  this  atom¬ 
istic  treatment  of  the  doctrine,  the  Socinians  lost  sight  of  the 
more  profound  significance  of  Christ's  death,  in  which  they  saw  only, 
either,  the  death  of  a  martyr  inducing  others  thus  to  lay  down  their 
lives  ;  or,  the  confirmation  of  divine  promises  ;  or,  in  fine,  the  neces¬ 
sary  transition  to  his  resurrection  and  subsequent  apotheosis.8  The 
Arminians  endeavoured  to  take  an  intermediate  position  between 
the  Socinians  and  the  advocates  of  the  church  orthodoxy.  The  sub¬ 
tile  distinction  made  by  Grotius  between  satis/ actio  and  solutio,  and 
the  idea  that  God,  by  inflicting  death  upon  Christ,  had  given  in  an 
arbitrary  way  an  example  of  punishment,  were  untenable  modifica¬ 
tions  of  Anselm's  theory.  He  thus  deprived  it  of  its  characteristic 
features,  without  removing  all  the  difficulties  raised  by  the  skeptical 
understanding  of  the  Socinians.9  After  Grotius ,  Curcellceus  and 
Limborch  emphasized  the  idea  of  a  sacrifice,  as  set  forth  in  the  Old 
Testament,  which  the  theologians  previous  to  the  time  of  Anselm, 
had  generally  adopted.10  This  theory  was  introduced  into  the  Ar- 
minian  works  on  systematic  theology,  and  approved  by  the  Socinians 
of  the  next  period.11  The  Quakers  admitted  the  orthodox  doctrine 
that  redemption  has  once  been  made  by  the  death  of  Christ,  but 
connected  with  it  the  idea  of  a  second  redemption,  which  is  realized 
internally.  In  accordance  with  their  entire  economy  of  redemption, 
and  the  opinions  of  the  mystics  in  general,  they  regarded  this  second 
reconciliation  as  the  essential  redeeming  principle.12 

1  However  much  Homan  Catholics  and  Protestants  differed  as  to  the 
causes  and  consequences  of  Christ’s  death  (sin  and  justification),  they  were  in 
perfect  accordance  respecting  its  object.  “  It  is  the  common  doctrine  of  Pro - 
testants  and  Roman  Catholics ,  that  the  sufferings  or  merits  of  Christ  object¬ 
ively  possess  an  infinite  value!  Baur ,  p.  344.  On  this  account  little  was 
determined  concerning  this  point  during  the  earlier  part  of  the  Reformation. 
u  Melancthon ,  even  in  the  later  editions  of  his  Loci  Theologici ,  did  not  treat  of 
the  theory  of  satisfaction  in  a  particular  locus ,  nor  did  he  expressly  single  it 
out ,  but  included  all  that  had  reference  to  it ,  in  the  doctrine  concerning  justi¬ 
fying  faith.  The  same  may  be  said  with  regard  to  those  passages  in  the 
Augustina  and  the  Apologia  which  refer  to  the  atoning  death  of  Christ 
Baur ,  p.  289.  Comp.  Conf.  August.,  Art.  iii.,  p.  10,  Apolog.  iii.,  p.  93  : 
Lex  damnat  omnes  homines,  sed  Christus,  quia  sine  peccato  subiit  poenam 
peccati,  et  victima  pro  nobis  factus  est,  instituit  illud  jus  legis,  ne  accuset,  ne 


356 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


danmet  nos  qni  credant  in  ipsum,  quia  credant  in  ipsum,  quia  ips$  est  pro- 
pitiatio  pro  eis,  propter  quam  nunc  justi  reputantur.  Yet  even  Luther  fell 
back  upon  the  old  representation  of  a  legal  strife  with  the  devil,  and  of  his 
being  worsted  therein  ;  see  his  Easter  Sermon,  1530  ;  his  commentary  on 
Job,  and  other  passages  cited  by  Weisse  (ubi  supra),  p.  29  sq. :  yet  on  the 
other  hand,  he  went  beyond  Anselm,  and  recognized  the  idea  of  satisfaction 
as  inadequate ;  see  Walch,  xx.,  p.  989,  and  compare  SchenJcel,  p.  227  sq. 
(On  the  relation  of  Luther’s  doctrine  to  that  of  Osiancler ,  see  Weisse,  p.  83 
sq.)  In  Zwingle,  more  than  in  Luther  and  Melancthon,  the  doctrine  of  satis¬ 
faction  in  the  sense  of  Anselm  is  made  prominent ;  yet  there  are  also  passages 
which  indicate  that  he  too  had  got  beyond  it ;  see  SchenJcel ,  p.  245,  sq.  In 
fact,  “  the  strict  Anselmic  theory  of  satisfaction  does  not  come  right  out  any  where 
in  the  Reformed  system  Schweizer ,  ii.  389  ;  SchnecJcenburger ,  ubi  supra. 

[“  Zwingle  and  Calvin  did  indeed  adhere  to  the  dogma  of  satisfaction  in 
its  traditional  form ;  but  from  their  point  of  view  the  satisfaction  itself  was 
subsumed  under  the  idea  of  the  absolute  decree,  in  relation  to  which  the 
satisfaction  of  Christ  was  not  the  causa  meritoria  of  salvation,  but  only  the 
causa  instrumentalis,  carrying  out  the  purpose  of  redemption ;  and  the 
object  of  the  death  and  sufferings  of  Christ  was,  not  the  objective  mediation 
of  redemption,  but  only  the  strengthening  of  the  subjective  assurance  of 
salvation.  To  this  is  to  be  added,  that  the  preliminaries  of  the  strict  satis¬ 
faction  theory  failed  in  the  Reformed  theology,  on  account  of  their  views  as 
to  the  person  of  Christ.  For  as  all  active  and  passive  obedience  becomes  a 
satisfaction,  only  as  it  is  the  obedience  of  a  person  whose  divine  nature  im¬ 
parts  to  it  an  infinite  value  ;  and  since,  in  the  Reformed  view,  the  whole 
obedience  and  suffering  of  the  God-man  fell  upon  the  human  side  (so  that  the 
non-obligation  of  obedience  to  the  law  can  be  asserted  only  of  the  Logos  in 
himself,  and  not  of  the  incarnate  Logos,  who  is  essentially  only  man,  developed 
in  successive  stages)  ;  it  follows,  that  the  God-man  by  his  obedience  merited 
something  for  himself,  and  that  others  have  part  therein,  only  so  far  as  they 
belong  essentially  to  him,  and  realize  in  themselves  the  same  obedience, 
which  he,  as  the  ideal,  performed  for  them.  And  hence  we  have  among  the  - 
Reformed,  the  idea  of  a  life  communion  with  Christ  taking  the  place  of  the 
Lutheran  notion  of  satisfaction  Baur ,  p.  328.  This  view  of  Baur  (and 

Schneckenburger),  is  undoubtedly  pressed  beyond  the  historical  data,  al¬ 
though  it  indicates  some  tendencies  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  which  have 
been  much  overlooked,  and  of  which  the  later  German  divines  have  made 
more  use.  There  can  be  no  question  that  the  idea  of  satisfaction  was  made 
prominent  by  all  the  leading  Calvinistic  divines.  See  Heppe ,  Dogmatik 
d,  Ref.  Kirche,  p.  340,  sq.  As  to  the  absolute  necessity  of  this  satisfaction, 
Calvin  said  (Inst.  ii.  12,»1):  De  necessitate  si  quseritur,  non  simplex  vel  abso- 
luta  fuit,  sed  manavit  ex  coelcsti  decreto ,  unde  pendebat  hominum  salus. 
Later  divines  expressed  themselves  more  strongly  (see  Turretine,  xiv.  10,  4). 
Cocceius,  Summa  Theol.  derives  its  necessity:  (1.)  A  justitia  Dei  ;  (2.)  Ex 
lege  operum ;  (3.)  A  legis  impotentia ;  (4.)  A  maledictione ;  (5.)  Ex  typo 
(the  types)  et  commemoratione  per  eum  facta  ;  (6.)  Ex  vocibus  scripturse  sig- 
nificantibus  satisfactionem.  Comp.  Heppe ,  p.  342. — As  to  the  extent  of  the 
redemption,  earlier  indefinite  statements  ( e .  g.  Calvin,  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 


§  268.  The  Doctrine  of  Atonement. 


357 


chism,  etc.),  gave  way  to  tlie  scheme  of  particularism  ;  although  the  death 
of  Christ  was  well  nigh  unanimously  held  to  be  sufficient  for  all,  and  to  he 
offered  to  all.  But  redemption  was  not  carefully  distinguished  from  atone¬ 
ment — the  completed  work  from  the  ample  provision.  On  the  School  of 
Saumur  on  this  point,  see  above,  §  225,  a, — Article  xxxi.,  of  the  Church 
of  England  says :  “  The  offering  of  Christ  once  made  is  that  perfect  redemp¬ 
tion,  propitiation,  and  satisfaction,  for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  both 
original  and  actual.”  Westminster  Confession ,  ch.  viii.  5  :  “  The  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  himself,  which  he  through 
the  eternal  Spirit  once  offered  up  unto  God,  hath  fully  satisfied  the  justice 
of  the  Father,  and  purchased  not  only  reconciliation,  but  an  everlasting  in¬ 
heritance  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  for  all  those  whom  the  Father  hath 
given  unto  him.”  Owen  (Works,  x.  259),  puts  “  this  dilemma  to  our  Uni- 
versalists  :  God  imposed  his  wrath  due  unto,  and  Christ  underwent  the 
pains  of  hell  for,  either  all  the  sins  of  all  men,  or  all  the  sins  of  some  men, 
or  some  sins  of  all  men.  If  the  last,  some  sins  of  all  men,  then  have  all 
men  some  sins  to  answer  for,  and  so  shall  no  man  be  saved. . .  .If  the  second, 
that  is  it  which  we  affirm. . .  .If  the  first,  why  then  are  not  all  freed  from 
the  punishment  of  all  their  sins.”  Baxter  taught  a  universal  atonement ; 
Methodus  Theol.,  Part  iii.  c.  1.] 

a  There  were  indeed  some  eminent  Roman  Catholic  writers,  among  them 
even  Bellarmine ,  who  sided  with  Thomas  Aquinas,  but  (to  judge  from  occa¬ 
sional  expressions)  it  would  appear  that  even  with  them  the  scheme  of  Duns 
Scotus  had  in  some  respects  greater  authority.  Comp.  Baur ,  p.  345,  with 
p.  348.  A  further  difference  was  this,  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  Roman 
Catholics,  by  the  death  of  Christ  satisfaction  was  made  only  for  guilt  con¬ 
tracted  before  baptism ;  while  only  the  eternal  punishment,  due  to  mortal 
sins  committed  after  baptism,  has  been  remitted ;  so  that  Christians  have 
themselves  to  make  satisfaction  for  temporal  punishments.  They  also 
asserted  that  the  merits  of  Christ  were  supererogatory,  while  Protes¬ 
tants  thought  they  were  equivalent  to  the  penalties  to  be  inflicted  upon 
men.  Comp,  the  passages  quoted  by  Winer ^  p.  77.  And,  lastly,  according 
to  Roman  Catholics,  Christ  by  his  sufferings  obtained  merit  for  himself;  this 
opinion  was  also  adopted  by  some  Calvinistic  theologians  (e.  g.  Piscator). 
See  Baur ,  pp.  349,  350.  Among  the  Protestants  themselves,  the  Reformed 
Church  approximated  more  nearly  to  the  Scotist  acceptilatio  than  did  the 
Lutherans.  See  Schneckenburger ,  ubi  supra. 

3  Gerhard ,  Loci  Theologici,  xvii.  ii.  c.  54  :  Quomodo  enim  peccata  nostra 
vere  in  se  suscepisset  ac  perfectam  satisfactionem  praestitisset,  nisi  iram  Dei 
individuo  nexu  cum  peccatis  conjunctam  vere  sensisset  ?  Quomodo  a  male- 
dicto  legis  nos  redemisset,  factus  pro  nobis  maledictum,  nisi  judicium  Dei 
irati  persensisset  ? — Nor  did  the  Heidelb.  Catechism  restrict  the  passive 
obedience  of  Christ  to  his  sacrifice  made  on  the  cross  (as  Anselm  had 
done),  for  it  expressly  states  (Qu.  37)  that  Christ  “  bore  the  divine  wrath 
during  the  whole  period  of  his  earthly  life.”  And  in  Qu.  44  mention  is 
made  of  his  mental  sufferings ,  to  which  the  theologians  of  the  Reformed 
Church,  generally  speaking,  attached  greater  importance.  See  Beckhaus , 
1.  c.  pp.  68,  69. 


358 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


4  Bellarmine  pronounced  this  doctrine  “  a  new,  unheard-of  heresy.” 
Baur ,  p.  348. 

5  This  doctrine  of  obedientia  activa  was  most  prominently  brought  for¬ 
ward  in  the  Formula  Concordiae.  On  the  question  whether,  and  in  what 
manner,  it  had  previously  existed,  see  the  Evangelische  Kirchen.-Zeitung, 
1834,  p.  523,  and  on  the  other  side,  Baur,  p.  297,  note.  “ Even  Ch.  Wl 
F.  Walch ,  so  well  read  in  theological  literature ,  observes  in  his  Comment,  de 
Obedient.  Christi  activa ,  p.  30  :  Quis  primus  hujus  formulae  fuerit  auctor, 
certe  definire  non  audeo .”  Baur ,  p.  301.  Comp.,  however,  Weisse ,  ubi 
supra,  p.  52,  sq.,  Schenkel,  i.  267,  sq.  Form.  Cone.  p.  684  :  Cum  enim 
Christus  non  tantum  homo,  verum  Deus  et  homo  sit  in  una  persona  indivisa, 
tam  non  fuit  legi  subjectus,  quam  non  fuit  passioni  et  morti  (ratione  suae 
personae)  obnoxius,  quia  Dominus  legis  erat.  Earn  ob  causam  ipsius  obe¬ 
dientia  (non  ea  tantum,  qua  Patri  paruit  in  tota  sua  passione  et  morte,  verum 
etiam,  qua  nostra  causa  sponte  sese  legi  subjecit,  eamque  obedientia  ilia  sua 
implevit)  nobis  ad  justitiam  imputatur,  ita,  ut  Deus  propter  totam  obedien- 
tiam,  quam  Christus  agendo  et  patiendo ,  in  vita  et  morte  sua,  nostra  causa 
Patri  suo  coelesti  prsestitit,  peccata  nobis  remittat,  pro  bonis  et  justis  nos 
reputet,  et  salute  aeterna  donet. — Pag.  686  :  Propter  obedientiam  Christi, 
quam  Christus  inde  a  nativitate  sua  usque  ad  ignominiosissimam  crucis 
mortem  pro  nobis  Patri  suo  praestitit,  boni  et  justi  pronuntiantur  et  reputan- 
tur.  Comp.  p.  696  :  [Cum  autem,  ut  supra  commemoratum  est,  obedientia 
ilia  Christi,  non  sit  unius  duntaxat  naturae,  sed  totius  personae :  ideo  ea  est 
perfectissima  pro  humano  genere  satisfactio  et  expiatio,  qua  aeternae  et  immu- 
tabili  justi tiae  divinae  satis  est  factum.  Flacius,  quoted  by  Baur,  p.  327  : 
Tota  vita  filii  tam  obedientiae  tam  passionis  nomine  compreliendi  potest. 
Nam  et  obedientia  fuit  perpetua  quaedam  passio,  et  passio  perpetua  obe¬ 
dientia.]  Nor  did  the  earlier  Calvinistic  theologians  make  a  distinction 
between  obedientia  activa  et  passiva.  Calvin  comprehends  both  together ; 
see  Inst.  ii.  16,  5.  See  Baur,  p.  333.  On  the  contrary,  the  Form.  Consens. 
which  was  afterwards  composed,  agreed  with  the  Form.  Concordiae  (in  op¬ 
position  to  George  Karg  and  Pi  sea  tor.  See  §  269),  in  Art.  15  :  Spiritus 
quoque  Dei  rotundo  ore  asserit,  Christum  sanctissima  sua  vita  legi  et  justitiae 
divinae  pro  nobis  satisfecisse,  et  pretium  illud,  quo  emti  sumus  Deo,  non  in 
passionibus  duntaxat,  sed  tota  ejns  vita  legi  conformata  collocat.  Comp. 
Thomasius ,  Dogmatis  de  Obedientia  activa  Historia,  Erlang.,  1846,  II.,  4to. 
[Calvin’s  statement  is :  Ubi  quaeritur,  quomodo  dissidium  Christi  inter  nos 
et  Deum  sustulerit  et  justitiam  acquisierit,  generaliter  responderi  potest,  tota 
obedientia  suce  cursu  hoc  nobis  praestitisse. — Ex  quo  induit  personam  servi, 
coepit  ad  nos  redimendos  praetium  liberationis  solvere.  Scriptura  tamen  hoc 
morti  Christi  quasi  peculiare  adscribit. — Neque  tamen  excluditur  reliqua 
pars  obedientice,  qua  defunctus  est  in  vita.  Et  sane  primum  gradum  occupat 
voluntaria  subjectio,  etc.  Inst.  ii.  16,  5.  Wollebius,  81  :  Mandatum  patris, 
cui  obedivit  Christus,  speciale  et  generale  fuit :  speciale,  respectu  finis,  ut 
non  pro  se,  sed  pro  nobis  obediret:  generale  vero,  respectu  objecti.  Eidem 
enim  legi  subjectus  fuit,  quae  nobis  praescripta  est,  et  in  omnibus,  ad  quae  lex 
nos  obstrinxit.  Comp.  Heppe,  Dogmatik  der  Ref.  Kirche,  p.  336.  He  says 
that  the  older  German  Reformed  divines  taught  that  the  active  obedience 


268.  The  Doctrine  of  Atonement. 


359 


of  Christ  was  for  himself ;  but  that  later  (after  Piscator  denied  the  imputa¬ 
tion  of  this  active  obedience),  it  was  usual  to  view  it  in  a  twofold  aspect  and 
relation,  on  the  one  hand,  to  Christ  as  a  man  ;  on  the  other  hand,  to  Christ 
as  sponsor  and  mediator  for  man.  Still  later  ( e .  g.  in  Burmann ),  it  was 
more  precisely  defined  by  the  notions  of  subjectio  sub  lege  naturalis,  and 
foederalis.  Turretine  distinguished  a  threefold  subjection  to  the  law,  natura¬ 
lis,  foederalis,  and  poenalis.  The  Westminster  Confession  does  not  separate 
the  two.] 

6  It  carried  the  doctrine  to  an  extreme,  by  annexing  the  idea  of  divine 
wrath,  and  of  the  punishment  of  hell ;  it  weakened  it  by  adding  the  obe- 
dientia  activa,  since  the  redeeming  element  was  then  no  longer  exclusively 
connected  with  the  pouring  out  of  the  blood,  and  the  agony  endured,  but  dif¬ 
fused  through  the  whole  life  and  only  concentrated  in  the  sacrificial  death. 

7  Sebastian  Frank  and  Thamer  had  preceded  in  this  line  ;  see  Schenkel ,  i. 
254,  sq.  But  Ochino  tries  more  particularly  (in  his  Dialogues,  Basel,  1563), 
to  transform  the  objective  satisfaction- theory  of  the  church  into  an  act  of 
subjective  reflection,  whereby  man  comes  to  see  that  God  is  disposed  to  for¬ 
give  him,  when  he  is  penitent ;  see  Schenkel ,  ii.  265,  sq.  To  these  forerun¬ 
ners,  F.  Socinus  attaches  himself  in  his  Prselect.  Theol.,  (see  JSaur ,  p.  371, 
sq.  Fock ,  p.  615,  sq.)  He  endeavors  to  show  that  the  terms  satisfactio 
and  remissio  peccatorum  contradict  each  other.  Where  satisfaction  has 
been  made,  forgiveness  is  no  longer  required,  and  where  sin  must  be  re¬ 
mitted,  no  satisfaction  has  been  made  (for  to  forgive  implies  that  grace  takes 
the  place  of  justice.)  Debts  are  either  remitted  or  claimed.  If  another 
make  the  payment,  it  has  the  same  value  as  if  it  had  been  paid  by  the 
debtor  himself,  and  a  gift  is  out  of  the  question.  Nor  can  punishments  be 
.compared  to  debts.  The  former  are  something  quite  personal,  which  cannot 
be  transferred  from,  one  person  to  another.  The  sufferings  of  the  innocent 
could  not  satisfy  the  requirements  of  divine  justice,  which  demanded  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  the  guilty.  But  mercy  could  pardon  without  inflicting  punishment. 
And,  lastly,  what  Christ  has  done  and  suffered  for  us,  is  no  true  equivalent. 
Not  only  has  the  whole  human  race  deserved  eternal  death,  but  every  sinner 
for  himself  deserves  the  same  penalty.  But  Christ  did  not  die  eternal 
death,  and  his  temporal  death  was  only  one  (not  several  deaths).  Further, 
the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  had  not  the  character  of  punishment, 
but  formed  his  transition  to  glory.  Nor  can  we  speak  of  active  obedience, 
because  the  man  Christ  owed  it  to  God  for  himself ;  besides,  one  man  could 
render  obedience  only  for  one  man,  but  not  one  man  for  all. — Socinus  also 
pointed  out  the  (possible)  immoral  consequences  of  the  Protestant  doctrine 
of  justification  (as  did  all  its  opponents.) — In  respect  to  the  interpretation 
of  Scripture,  there  was  no  need  here  of  being  as  arbitrary,  as  in  the  Chris- 
tology.  Comp.  Baur ,  391.  Fock ,  631.  “It  can  hardly  be  denied,  that 
the  Socinians,  in  their  attack  upon  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  did  all  that 
was  possible  from  their  standpoint.  The  sharp,  intellectual  dialectics  of 
Socinianism  struck  so  precisely  at  the  weak  points  of  the  church  doctrine, 
and  exposed  its  defects  so  clearly,  that  it  was  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  for 
the  latter  to  ward  off  with  success  this  dexterous  and  superior  assault*” 
Ibid.  p.  637. 


360 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


8  Socinus  defined  the  object  of  Christ’s  death  'positively  as  follows ; 
1.  The  death  of  Christ  was  an  example  set  before  men  for  their  imitation : 
Christ.  Relig.  Inst.  (Biblioth.  Fratr.  Polon.  T.  i.  p.  667) :  Christus  snorum 
fidelium  servator  est,  primum,  quia  sui  ipsius  exemplo  illos  ad  viam  salutis, 
quarn  ingressi  jam  sunt,  perpetuo  tenendam  movet  atque  inducit.  .  .  .  Quo- 
modo  vero  suo  exemplo  potuisset  Christus  movere  atque  inducere  suos 
fideles  ad  singularem  illam  probitatem  et  innocentiam  perpetuo  retineudam, 
sine  qua  servari  nequeunt,  nisi  ipse  prior  cruentam  mortem,  quse  illam  facile 
comitatur,  gustasset?  Men  imitating  his  example  will  also  be  delivered 
from  sin.  Prsel.  Theol.  p.  591  :  Tollit  peccata  Christus,  quia  ad  poeniten- 
tiam  agendam,  qua  peccata  delentur,  ccelestibus  iisque  amplissimis  promissis 
omnes  allicit  et  movere  potens  est. . .  .Tollit. . .  .peccata,  quia  vitae  suae  in- 
nocentissimse  exemplo  omnes,  qui  deploratae  spei  non  fuerint,  ad  justitiae  et 
sanctitatis  studium,  peccatis  relictis  amplectendum,  facillime  adducit.  The 
deliverance  from  sin  is  brought  about  in  a  psychologico-moral  way.  2.  It 
was  the  confirmation  of  the  promises  made  by  God :  De  Jesu  Christo  Serva* 
tore  P.  1  ;  c.  3  (Bibl.  T.  ii.  p.  127) :  Mortuus  igitur  est  Christus,  ut  novum 
et  aeternum  Dei  foedus,  cujus  ipse  mediator  fuerat,  stabiliret  ac  conservaret. 
Et  adeo  hac  ratione  divina  promissa  confirmavit,  ut  Deum  ipsum  quodam- 
modo  ad  ea  nobis  praestanda  devinxerit,  et  sanguis  ejus  assidue  ad  patrem 
clamat,  ut  promissorum  suorum,  quae  ipse  Christus  nobis  illius  nomine  annun- 
ciavit,  pro  quibus  confirmandis  suum  ipsius  sanguinem  fundere  non  recusavit, 
meminisse  velit. — Comp.  Cat.  Racov.  qu.  383.  With  this  is  connected  the 
assurance  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  :  De  Christo  serv.  c.  13  :  Morte  Christi, 
seu  ejus  supplicio  peracto,  nemo  est,  qui  Deum  nos  suprema  caritate  am- 
plexum  non  agnoscat,  eum  erga  nos  placatissimum  non  videat,  et  jam  sibi 
universa  delicta  condonata  esse,  pro  certo  habeat.  3.  The  necessary  means 
preparatory  to  his  resurrection ,  by  ivhiclt  he  entered  into  glory .  Cat.  Racov. 
p.  265  (see  Winer ,  p.  74) :. . .  .Deinde  (mortuus  est)  quod  per  mortem  per- 
venerit  ad  resurrectionem,  ex  qua  maxima  oritur  divinse  voluntatis  confirma- 
tio  deque  nostra  resurrection e  et  vitae  aeternae  adeptione  certissima  persuasio. 
— With  this  is  connected  the  feeling  of  compassion  which  Christ,  in  his 
state  of  exaltation,  has  toward  men,  on  account  of  which  he  delivers  them 
from  death,  Christ.  Relig.  Institut.  p.  667,  de  Jesu  Chr.  serv.  p.  133.  See 
dBaur ,  p.  410:  “Inasmuch  as  Christ  employs  the  power  granted  to  him  by 
God  in  forgiving  men  their  sins,  and  making  them  partakers  of  eternal  life, 
the  Socinians  admit  him  to  be  high  priest ;  but  as  Christ  exercises  his  func¬ 
tions  of  high  priest  in  heaven  alone,  his  priestly  office  does  not  essentially 
differ  from  the  kingly.”  Comp,  the  passages  quoted  from  the  symbolical 
books  of  the  Socinians  by  Winer ,  pp.  74,  75,  and  Flatt ,  Beitrage  zur  christ- 
lichen  Dogmatik  und  Moral,  Tub.,  1792. 

9  Grotius ,  in  his  treatise :  Defensio  Fidei  Catholicae  de  Satisfactione 
Christi,  1617,  combated  the  views  of  Socinus,  and  argued  from  the  jurid¬ 
ical  proposition  (c.  2) :  Punire  non  est  actus  competens  parti  offensae, 
qua  tali.  God  may  indeed  be  considered  as  the  offended  party,  but  in  in¬ 
flicting  punishments  he  does  not  punish,  qua  pars  offensa  (sicut  jurisconsultus 
canit  non  qua  jurisconsultus,  sed  qua  musicus).  The  right  of  punishing  be¬ 
longs  .to  God  as  the  Sovereign  of  the  universe,  independently  of  any  offence 


§  268.  The  Den  trine  of  Atonement. 


361 


which  may  have  been  givqp  to  him.  Punishment  has  a  political  design 
(ordinis  nimirum  conservationem  et  exemplum)  :  for  justice  is  not  manifested 
in  avenging  injuries,  or  compelling  debtors  to  pay  their  debts  (which  he  might 
voluntarily  remit),  but  in  punishing  the  wicked.  That  in  certain  cases  the 
punishment  falls  upon  the  innocent,  proves  nothing;  similar  instances  might 
be  adduced  from  the  history  of  nations,  e.  g .,  the  decimating  of  the  Ro¬ 
man  legions!  Nihil  ergo  iniquitatis  in  eo  est,  quod  Deus,  cujus  est  summa 
potestas  ad  omnia  per  se  non  injusta,  nulli  ipse  legi  obnoxius,  crueiatibus  et 
morte  Christi  uti  voluit  ad  statuendum  exemplum  grave  adversus  culpas  im- 
mensas  nostrum  omnium,  quibus  Christus  erat  conjunctissimus  natura,  regno, 
vadimonio  (c.  4,  towards  the  end).  He  endeavored  to  meet  the  objection 
made  by  Socinus,  by  making  a  distinction  between  satisfactio  and  solutio. 
The  latter  indeed  excludes  the  remissio  peccatorum,  because  matters- having 
been  settled  between  creditor  and  debtor,  no  further  demand  can  be  made 
upon  the  latter.  But  the  satisfactio  (in  the  sense  applied  to  it  by  Grotius) 
does  not  exclude  the  possibility  of  a  remissio  (c.  6,  6.  p.  78.) — Comp.  Luden, 
Hugo  Grotius,  p.  100,  ss.  Evangelische  Kirchenzeitung,  1834,  No.  66. — 
Seisen  (see  above  §  180),  *p.  90,  ss. — In  the  formal  juridical  aspect,  the 
theory  of  Grotius  resembled  that  of  Anselm,  but  was  not  so  profound,  either 
from  the  theological  or  juridical  point  of  view.  It  was  based  upon  political 
rather  than  jural  premises,  and  seemed  to  ascribe  to  God  a  despotic  charac¬ 
ter.  It  could  not  satisfy  either  the  feelings  or  the  reason  of  Christians, 
while  the  theory  of  Anselm  accomplished  the  former,  and  that  of  the  Soci- 
nians  the  latter,  though  both  were  one-sided  and  imperfect.  Grotius,  in¬ 
deed,  not  only  rejected  the  idea  of  “  Acceptation,”  but  also  unjustly  charged 
Socinus  with  holding  it;  nevertheless  “  there  is  no  theory  to  which  the  idea 
of  acceptation  could  be  applied  with  greater  propriety  than  to  that  of  Gro¬ 
tius.”  Baur,  p.  428.  “  Grotius ,  as  well  as  Socinus ,  attached  principal  im¬ 
portance  to  the  moral  impression  which  the  death  of  Christ  is  calculated  to 
produce ,  with  this  difference  only ,  that  Grotius  takes  this  moral  principle 
negatively ,  Socinus  positively ;  for,  in  the  opinion  of  Grotius,  the  moral 
effect  of  Chris  fs  death  consists  in  the  exhibition  of  the  punishment  due  to 
sin  'y  according  to  Socinus,  in  the  moral  courage  which  Christ  manifested  in 
his  death”  Baur,  pp.  431,  432.  Nor  was  the  theory  of  Grotius  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  (orthodox)  doctrine  concerning  the  nature  of  Christ,  since 
the  effect  spoken  of  by  Grotius  might  have  been  produced  by  another  than 
a  God-man  ;  comp.  ibid.  p.  433. — The  defects  of  this  theory  were  exposed 
by  Crell,  a  Socinian  writer,  in  his  Responsio  ad  librum  Hug.  Grotii,  quem 
de  satisfactione  Christi  adversum  Faustum  Socinum  Senensem  scripsit.,  1623, 
in  Bibl.  Fratr.  Polon.  T.  v.  p.  1,  ss.  Concerning  this  treatise,  and  the  fur¬ 
ther  progress  of  the  controversy,  see  Baur,  p.  438,  ss. 

1U  Curcellceus,  Rel.  Christ.  Instit.  v.  19,  15,  ss.,  advanced  the  same  argu¬ 
ments  against  the  theory  of  Anselm  which  Socinus  had  made  use  of,  but 
laid  greater  stress  upon  the  idea  of  sacrifice :  Non  ergo,  ut  vulgo  putant, 
satisfecit  Christus  patiendo  ornues  poenas,  quas  peccatis  nostris  merueramus : 
nam  primo  istud  ad  sacrificii  rationem  non  pertinet,  sacrificia  enim  non  sunt 
solutiones  debitorum  ;  secundo  Christus  non  est  passes  mortem  aeternam, 
quae  erat  poena  peccato  debita,  nam  paucis  tantum  horis  in  cruce  pepend.it 


362 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


et  tertia  die  resurrexit.  Irao  etiamsi  mortem  aeternam  pertulisset,  non  vide* 
tur  satisfacere  potuisse  pro  omnibus  totius  mundi  peccatis ;  haec  enim  fuisset 
tantum  una  mors,  quae  omnibus  mortibus,  quas  singuli  pro  suis  peccatis 
meruerant,  non  aequivaluisset.  Limborch  also  rested  bis  argumentation 
mainly  upon  tbe  idea  of  sacrifice  (Apol.  Thes.  3,  22,  5),  which,  according 
to  bis  definition,  is  not  plenaria  satisfactio  pro  peccatis,  but  only  tbe  condi¬ 
tion  of  the  gratuita  peccati  remissio. . .  .Voluntas  divina  in  unica  bac  vic- 
tima  acquievit.  Comp.  Baur,  p.  442,  ss. 

11  See  Baur,  p.  451,  note. 

12  Barclay,  Apol.  Thes.  vii.  2,  given  by  Winer,  p.  76;  Baw\  p*  467,  ss. 
Concerning  tbe  other  mystics,  Schwenkfeld ,  Weigel ,  Bdhmev  «ee  ibid.,  p. 
459,  ss.,  and  comp,  the  §§  on  justification  and  sanctification. 


§  269. 

DIFFERENCES  OF  OPINION  WITHIN  THE  LUTHERAN  AND  REFORMED 

CHURCHES. 

Osiander,  a  Lutheran  theologian,  propounded  a  theory  respecting 
the  sufferings  of  Christ,  in  connection  with  his  views  of  the  relation 
in  which  justification  stands  to  sanctification.  In  his  opinion  it  was 
only  the  Divine  nature  of  our  Lord  which  became  our  righteous¬ 
ness,1  while,  according  to  the  orthodox  doctrine,  Christ  suffered 
death  on  our  account  in  his  character  as  God-man.  On  the  other 
hand,  Stancarus  asserted,  that  it  was  only  the  human  nature  of  our 
Saviour  which  submitted  to  suffering.2  But  his  opinion  was  rejected 
by  the  orthodox  theologians  of  the  three  principal  sections  of  the 
Church.  Among  the  Calvinistic  theologians,  John  Piscator  of  Her- 
born  (after  the  example  of  George  Karg ,  a  Lutheran  clergyman),  as 
well  as  John  Cameron  of  Saumur,  combated  the  doctrine  of  an  obe- 
dientia  activa,  maintaining  that  Christ  for  himself  owed  active  obedi¬ 
ence  to  God.3  In  opposition  to  the  views  of  these  individuals,  as 
well  as  to  those  of  the  sects,  both  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  divines 
firmly  established,  and  formally  developed,  the  doctrine  of  satisfac¬ 
tion.  In  works  on  systematic  theology,  it  took  its  place  in  Christology, 
along  with  the  three  offices  of  Christ  (viz.,  as  his  priestly  office)  ;  with 
justification  in  the  Lutheran  system  as  the  causa  meritoria  of  salva¬ 
tion,  in  the  Reformed,  as  the  causa  instrumentalist 

1  Conf.  M.  3,  p.  93  :  Diserte  et  clare  respondeo,  quod  sec.  divinam  suam 
naturam  sit  nostra  justitia,  et  non  sec.  humanam  naturam,  quamvis  banc 
divinam  justitiam  extra  ejus  humanam  naturam  non  possumus  invenire.  .  . . 
consequi  aut  apprehendere  ;  verum  cum  ipse  per  fidem  in  nobis  habitat,  turn 
affert  suam  justitiam, quse  est  ejus  divina  natura,secum  in  nos, quae  deinde  nobis 
etiam  imputatur  ac  si  esset  nostra  propria,  immo  et  donatur  nobis  manatque 
ex  ipsius  humana  natura,  tamquam  ex  capite,  etiam  in  nos,  tamquam  ipsius 


§  269.  Differences  of  Opinion  on  the  Atonement.  363 


membra.  See  SchenJcel ,  i.  300,  sq.,  3 55,  sq.  On  the  relation  in  which  his 
doctrine  stood  to  some  earlier  opinions  respecting  Christ’s  mystical  body,  see 
Baur ,  pp.  327,  3 28.  Concerning  similar  views  entertained  by  Calvin ,  who 
also  violently  opposed  Osiander,  see  Baur,  i.  331  ;  SchenJcel, \\.  369.  (Among 
the  opponents  of  Osiander,  Morlin  took  the  rudest  view  of  redemption, 
exhibiting  it  naively  in  a  dramatic  way;  SchenJcel ,  ii.  367.)  [On  Osiander , 
see  the  references,  p.  149,  ante.  “  The  real  antagonism  to  the  theory  of 
satisfaction  which  laid  the  stress  upon  the  penal  sufferings  of  Christ’s  death, 
was  found  in  that  view,  which  (as  in  Luther)  insisted  most  upon  the  organic 
connection  of  the  God-man  with  humanity  ;  or  upon  the  fact  that  he  en¬ 
tered  into  the  whole  cause  of  our  natural  and  legal  existence,  into  the  most 
intimate  life-communion  with  man,  and  overcame  victoriously,  from  his 
birth  to  the  resurrection,  all  the  hostile  powers  to  which  the  race  is  subject. 
On  the  same  side  are  those  who  conceived  of  Christ  as  the  God-man,  or  ideal 
man,  as  being  in  such  intimate  relation  to  humanity,  that  their  very  concep¬ 
tion  of  Christ’s  person  contains  all  that  is  comprised  in  the  doctrines  of  re¬ 
demption  and  atonement — as,  e.  g.  Osiander ,  SchwenJcfeld ,  FranJc ,  and 
others.”  Baur ,  p.  327.] 

2  Franciscus  Stancarus ,  of  Mantua  (died  1574,  in  Poland.)  His  theory, 
which  was  represented  as  Nestorianism,  was  condemned  by  both  Protestants 
(Form.  Concord.)  and  Roman  Catholics  ( Bellarmine ,  see  Baur ,  p.  347.) 
Calvin  also  opposed  him.  Wigand ,  de  Stancarismo  et  Osiandrisme,  1585, 
4.  Schlusselburg,  Cat.  Haeret.  lib.  ix. 

3  John  Piscator ,  a  Calvinistic  theologian  in  Herborn,  lived  towards  the 
close  of  the  sixteenth  and  commencement  of  the  seventeenth  century  ;  see 
Schweizer ,  Centraldogmen,  ii.  17.  [Gass,  Prot.  Dogmatik,  i.  163,  383,  422.] 
George  Karg  (Parsimonius)  gave  publicity  in  his  views,  a.  d.  1563,  but  re¬ 
nounced  them  1570.  Comp.  Walch,  Einleitung  in  die  Religionsstreitig- 
keiten  der  evangelischlutherischen  Kirche,  Yol.  iv.  p.  360,  ss.  Baur,  p. 
352  ss.  SchrocJch ,  v.  358.  Schweizer ,  ii.  16.  On  Cameron ,  see  ibid. 
235,  sq. 

4  Compare  the  compendiums  of  systematic  theology.  Be  Wette ,  p.  156, 
sq.  SchnecJcenburger ,  ubi  supra.  Schweizer ,  Glaubenslehre  der  ref.  Kirche, 
ii.  389. 

The  theory  of  Anselm  made  the  appearance  of  Christ  on  earth  dependent  upon  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  sin ;  according  to  Osiander  and  the  Socinians  he  would  have  manifested  himself 
though  there  had  been  no  sin  in  the  world.  Osiander  investigated  this  subject  very  fully 
in  a  separate  treatise  (which  has  now  become  rare) :  An  Filius  Dei  fuerit  incarnandus  si 
peccatum  non  introivisset  in  mundum  ?  Koningsb.,  1550.  Comp.  Schlusselburg,  Cat.  Haer. 
lib.  vi.,  p.  48  ss. ;  Baur,  p.  329.  On  the  Socinians,  see  Fock,  p.  506  sq.  [On  the  question 
of  an  incarnation  apart  from  sin,  see  Julius  Muller,  in  Deutsche  Zeitschrift,  Oct.,  1850. 
Florke,  Zeitschrift  fur  die  Luth.  Theol.,  1854,  pp.  209-249.] 


364 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


§  270. 

BAPTISM. 

J.  W.  Ho  fling,  Lehre  von  der  Taufe,  Erlangen,  1846.  [E.  B.  Pusey,  in  Tracts  for  the 

Times,  No.  61,  3d.  ed.,  1840.  Chronological  Catena  on  Baptism,  Lond.  1852.  Tracts 
for  Times,  No  7  6  :  Testimony  of  writers  in  the  English  Church  to  the  Doctrine  of 
Baptismal  Regeneration.  W.  Goode,  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  as  to  the 
effects  of  Baptism  in  the  case  of  Infants,  Lond.  1849,  2d.  ed.,  1850.] 

Among  the  doctrines  in  which  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants 
preserved  a  certain  agreement,  in  opposition  to  the  minor  religious 
sects,  was  that  concerning  baptism.1  For  though  the  baptismal 
ritual  itself  was  different  with  the  Roman  Catholics,  Lutherans,  and 
Calvinists  ;a  though  differences  of  opinion  obtained  respecting  the 
efficacy  of  baptism,  as  regards  original  sin,  and  the  fate  of  those 
children  who  die  unbaptised,3  and  as  to  the  capacity  of  faith  in  the 
baptized  and  the  degree  of  grace  conferred  in  the  rite  ;4  yet  Protest¬ 
ants  and  Catholics  entertained  essentially  the  same  view  of  the 
nature  of  baptism,  asserting,  1.  Its  general  necessity,  in  opposition 
to  the  Quakers  ;5  2.  Its  sacramental  character,  in  opposition  to  the 
Socinians  ;6  and  chiefly,  3.  The  necessity  of  infant  baptism  in  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  Anabaptists  (Mennonites).7  And,  lastly,  the  Roman 
Catholics,  in  accordance  with  their  view  of  the  baptism  of  heretics, 
were  compelled  to  acknowledge  the  validity  of  Protestant  baptism, 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Protestants  always  regarded  Romish 
baptism  as  a  Christian  ordinance,  and  never  thought  of  re-baptising 
those  who  were  converted  to  their  own  faith.8  [Some  Anglican  di¬ 
vines  denied  the  validity  of  any  baptism  administered  in  opposition 
to  “  the  divine  right  of  apostolical  succession.”]9 

1  Of  all  the  sacraments ,  that  of  baptism  is  the  one  respecting  which  Ro¬ 
man  Catholics  could  always  unite  most  easily  with  Protestants ,  and  would 
have  had  the  least  reason  for  framing  particular  canons ,  in  order  to  keep  up 
any  difference  in  respect  to  points  of  secondary  importance .”  Marheineke , 
Symbolik,  i.  p.  149.  The  reformers  also  declared,  that  of  all  the  sacraments, 
that  of  baptism  was  least  corrupted,  and  that  this  ordinance  had  more  than 
any  other  been  preserved  from  the  addition  of  heterogeneous  elements, 
Lutheri  Opp.  Lat.  Jen.  T.  ii.  p.  284  (in  Marheineke,  1.  c.) 

a  On  the  use  of  chrisma  (ointment),  of  salts,  the  lactis  et  mellis  degus- 
tatio,  and  other  ceremonies  common  among  Roman  Catholics,  the  formulas 
of  exorcism  used  by  Lutherans,  etc.,  as  well  as  on  the  usages  of  the  Greek 
Church,  see  the  works  on  archajology.  “  As  regards  the  water,”  said  Zwin- 
gle  (Von  der  Taufe,  Works,  ii.  p.  299),  “  it  should  be  taken  good,  fresh,  and 
pure  ;  for  as  John  baptised  in  the  river  Jordan,  we  ought  not  to  allow  the 
bishops  to  attach  so  much  importance  to  the  salt.”  Yet  there  still  remained 


§  270.  Baptism. 


3  65 


in  the  Protestant  church  many  superstitions  in  respect  to  the  baptismal  water. 
Comp.  Gerhard,  Loci  Theol.,  xxi.  c.  8,  §  170. 

3  Comp.  §  246.  According  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine,  original  sin 
being  removed  by  baptism,  all  that  remains  in  the  baptised  is  the  concupis- 
centia,  which  is  lex  fomitis,  but  not  sin ;  in  the  opinion  of  the  Protestants, 
original  sin  still  remains  in  the  baptised  (as  they  regarded  concupiscence  it¬ 
self  as  sinful),  but  is  no  longer  imputed.  Comp.  Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  5,  5,  and 
on  the  other  side  Apol.  p.  56  :  [Hie  flagellant  adversarii  etiam  Lutherum, 
quod  scripserit,  peccatum  originis  manere  post  baptismum. . . .  Sciunt  enim 
adversarii,  in  quam  sententiam  Lutherus  hoc  dictum  velit,  quod  peccatum 
originis  reliquum  sit  post  baptismum.  Semper  ita  scripsit,  quod  baptismus 
tollat.  reatum  peccati  originalis,  etiamsi  materiale,  ut  isti  vocant,  peccati 
raaneat,  videlicet  concupiscentia.  Addidit  etiam  de  materiali,  quod  Spiritus 
Sanctus,  datus  per  baptismum,  incipit  mortificare  concupiscentiam  et  novos 
motus  ereat  in  homine.] — For  further  passages,  see  Winer ,  p.  64,  and 
especiall}7  Calvin,  Institut.  iv.  c.  15,  §  10  :  [Haec  itaque  duo  distincte 
observanda ;  nempe  quod  sic  omnibus  naturae  nostrae  partibus  vitiati  per- 
versique,  jam  ob  talem  duntaxat  corruptionem  damnati  merito,  convicique 
coram  Deo  tenemur,  cui  nihil  est  acceptum  nisi  justitia,  innocentia,  puritas. 
Atque  adeo  infantes  quoque  ipsi  suam  secum  damnationem  a  matris  utero 
asserunt ;  qui  tametsi  suae  iniquitatis  fructus  nondum  protulerint,  habent 
tamen  in  se  inclusum  semen.  The  baptised,  he  adds,  obtain  justitia,  sed 
talem  in  hac  vita  obtinere  populus  Dei  potest,  nempe  imputatione  dun¬ 
taxat,  quia  pro  justis  et  innocentibus  eos  sua  misericordia  Dominus  habet.) 
- — Concerning  the  condemnation  of  unbaptised  children,  see  Winer,  p. 
131,  ss. 

4  While  the  Lutherans,  after  the  precedence  of  Luther  (see  SchenJcel,  i. 
140,  sq .),  assumed  an  actual  faith  on  the  part  of  the  children,  and  thus 
viewed  the  baptismal  grace  in  an  objective  way  ;  the  Reformed  contented 
themselves  with  the  statement,  that  children  by  baptism  were  received  into 
covenant  with  God,  even  though  there  was  no  faith  on  their  part.  Compare 
on  the  Lutheran  side  Gerhard,  Loci  Theol.,  xxi.  c.  8,  §  222:  Quamvis 
TEKfiripia  et  effectus  fidei  in  infantibus  non  ita  in  oculos  et  sensus  externos 
incurrant,  ut  fidei  in  adultis,  non  tamen  ob  id  omnes  fidei  fructus  in  infanti¬ 
bus  sunt  negandi,  cum  Scriptura  ipsis  tribuat  Dei  laudem  (Ps.  viii.  3),  Dei 
cognitionem  (1  John,  ii.  14),  victoriam  mundi  (c.  v.  4),  quos  esse  fidei  fructus 

et  bona  opera  nemo  inficias  iverit . Arbor  bona  in  media  hieme  non  desti- 

tuitur  proprietate  bonos  fructus  proferendi,  quamvis  exterius  id  non  apparent : 
et  nos  fidem  infantibus  ex  eo  negabimus,  quod  externos  ejusdem  fructus  non 
proferant  ?  Ut  in  seminibus  et  surculis  arborum  res  se  habet,  quamquam 
non  ferunt  fructus,  tamen  inest  eis  vis  et  natura,  ut  fructus  suo  tempore  pro- 
ducant :  sic  infantum  tides  evepyeiav  exteriorem  suo  tempore  exserit  et  fert 
fructus  Deo  placentes. — On  the  other  hand,  the  Reformed  took  the  ground, 
e.  g.,  Musculus ,  p.  336  :  Infantulos  habere  fidem,  non  probare  possumus,  nec 
satis  est  occultam  habere  fidem,  sed  fidei  professio  requiritur,  quae  certo  illis 
tribui  non  potest.  Vitringa,  Aphorism,  p.  250 :  Baptizandi  sunt  fidelium 
infantes,  quia  juste  prsesumtio  est,  quod  a  Spiritu  Sancto  ut  haereditas  Christi 


366 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


occupati  sint  et  suo  tempore  vere  sint  credituri.  Comp.  Schweizer ,  Glaubens* 
lehre  der  reform.  Kirche,  ii.  620. 

[The  divines  of  the  Church  of  England  taught  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  yet  with  cautions.  Bishop  Jewel ,  on  Sacraments,  p.  253  :  “We 
are  not  washed  from  our  sins  by  the  water,  we  are  not  fed  to  eternal  life  by 
the  bread  and  wine,  but  by  the  precious  blood  of  our  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ, 
that  lieth  hid  in.  these  sacraments.”  “  For  this  cause  are  infants  baptised, 
because  they  are  born  in  sin,  and  cannot  become  spiritual  but  by  this  new 
birth  of  the  water  and  the  Spirit.”  Richard  Hooker ,  Eccles.  Pol.,  Booh  v. 
60  :  “  Unless  as  the  Spirit  is  a  necessary  inward  cause,  so  water  were  a  ne¬ 
cessary  outward  means  to  our  regeneration,  what  construction  should  be 
given  to  those  words  wherein  we  are  said  to  be  new  born,  and  that  1%  v$arog, 
even  of  water?  Baptism  is  the  door  of  our  actual  entrance  into  God’s 
house,  the  first  apparent  beginning  of  life,  a  seal  perhaps  to  the  grace  of  elec¬ 
tion  before  received  :  but  to  our  sacntifi cation  here,  a  step  which  hath  not  any 
before  it.”  Jackson  on  Christ’s  Priesthood,  ch.  i.  (vol.  iii.  p.  271) :  “It  is 
no  part  of  our  Church’s  doctrine  or  meaning,  that  the  washing  or  sprinkling 
infants’  bodies  with  consecrated  water,  should  take  away  sins  by  its  own  im¬ 
mediate  virtue. . .  .The  meaning  is,  that  if  the  sacrament  of  baptism  be  duly 
administered,  the  blood,  or  bloody  sacrifice  of  Christ,  or  (which  is  all  one) 
the  influence  of  his  Spirit  doth  always  accompany,  or  is  concurrent  to  this 
solemn  act. . .  .This  sacramental  pledge  hath  a  virtual  presence  of  Christ’s 
blood,  or  some  real  influence  from  his  Body,  concomitant,  though  not  consub- 
stantiated  to  it,  which  is  prefigured  or  signified  by  the  washing  or  sprinkling 
the  body  with  water.” — Jeremy  Taylor ,  Life  of  Christ,  section  9  :  Baptism 
“  does  not  heal  the  wounds  of  actual  sins  [in  infants],  because  they  have  not 
committed  them  ;  but  it  takes  off  the  evil  of  original  sin :  whatsoever  is 
imputed  to  us  by  Adam’s  prevarication,  is  washed  off  by  the  death  of  the 
second  Adam,  into  which  we  are  baptised.”  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  Art. 
ix. :  Baptism  “  is  infallibly  efficacious  as  to  this  particular,  that  is  to  the  re¬ 
mission  of  all  sins  committed  before  the  administration  of  the  sacrament.” 
Waterland ,  of  Regeneration,  2  :  “  Their  [infants’]  innocence  and  incapacity 
are  to  them  instead  of  repentance,  which  they  do  not  need,  and  of  actual 
faith,  which  they  cannot  have. . .  .They  stipulate,  they  enter  into  contract, 
by  their  sureties,  upon  a  presumptive  and  interpretative  consent.”  See 
Tracts  for  Times,  No.  76.] 

B  Comp.  §  258,  note  7,  in  the  sacraments. 

0  Zwingle  may  herein  be  considered  as  the  forerunner  of  the  Socinians,  so 
far  as  this,  that  his  statements  on  baptism  are  much  behind  the  later  defini¬ 
tion  of  the  Reformed  church,  and  are  essentially  different  from  those  of 
Luther.  In  his  Confes.  ad  Carolum  V.,  baptism  is  viewed  as  having  only 
the  significancy  of  being  received  into  the  church  :  Non  quod  baptismus  rem 
prsestet,  sed  ut  rem  prius  prsestitam  multitudini  testeter.  Zwingle  Yom  Touf 
(Werke,  ii.  1,  p.  301):  “No  element  or  external  thing  in  this  world  can 
purify  the  soul,  but  the  purification  of  the  soul  is  only  of  the  grace  of  God. 
So  it  follows,  that  baptism  cannot  wash  away  any  sin.  As  it  can  not  wash 
sin  away,  and  yet  has  been  appointed  of  God,  it  must  be  a  sign  of  dedication 
of  the  people  of  God,  and  nothing  at  all  else .”  So,  too,  the  Socinians  view 


§  270.  Baptism. 


367 


baptism  as  merely  a  rite  of  consecration.  It  has  not  an  effective,  but  only  a 
declarative,  significancy.  F.  Socinus ,  De  Baptismo  Aquae  Disput.  (in  Bibl. 
Fratrum  Polon.,  i.  p.  709  sq.)  p.  720  :  In  nomine  Jesu  Christi  aqua  baptizari 
nihil  aliud  est,  quam  publice  Christo  noinen  dare,  ejusque  fidem,  quae  in 
corde  latet,  palam  testari  ac  profiteri,  uta  ut  non  Christianum  ulla  ex  parte 
baptism  us  efficiat ,  sed  indicet  atque  declarat.  Comp,  the  symbols  in  Winer, 
p.  128,  and  Focic,  p.  582  sq.  Similiar  views  were  entertained  by  the  Armi- 
nians  and  Mennonites,  who  regarded  baptism  as  a  symbolical  communication 
of  grace,  ibid.  p.  129.  Luther  expressed  himself  very  differently  in  his  Pos- 
tille,  iii.  34,  Walch,  xii.,  p.  714  :  “And  thus  the  blood  of  Christ  is  so  inti¬ 
mately  mingled  with  the  water  of  baptism,  that  we  should  neither  regard  it  as 
merely  clean  water,  but  look  upon  it  as  water  beautifully  colored  and  red¬ 
dened  with  the  precious  rose  colored  blood  of  our  dear  Saviour.”  (The  cir¬ 
cumstance  of  water  and  blood  flowing  out  of  Christ’s  side,  he  referred  to 
baptism,  others  to  the  Lord’s  Supper.)  Comp,  also  his  Catech.  Major  : 
“Perceive  ye  now  that  [the  water  of]  baptism  is  very  different  from  all 
other  kinds  of  water,  not  on  account  of  its  nature,  but  because  something 
higher  has  been  added — viz.  the  glory,  power,  and  might  of  God  himself. 
Therefore  it  is  not  only  natural  water,  but  Divine,  heavenly,  holy  and  blessed 
water,  and  what  other  praise  may  be  bestowed  upon  it,  all  on  account  of  the 
Word,  which  is  a  holy,  heavenly  Word,  which  can  not  be  too  highly  spoken 
of.”  John  Gerhard ,  however  (Loci  Theol.  xxi.,  c.  7,  §  122),  speaks  against 
a  merely  physical  (magical)  union  of  divine  grace  with  the  water :  Nec  dici- 
mus,  quod  aquae  vis  regenerandi  tamquam  subjecto  (pvouriog  inhaereat,  aut 
quod  naturali  quacunque  ratione  et  vinculo  quodam  insolubili  gratia  Spiritus 
Sancti  ei  sit  adligata,  sed  sacramentali  mysterio  vim  illam  huic  sacramento 
ex  ordinatione  divina  6pyavuc&g  et  vneptyvouc&g  ad  salutem  credentium 
conjunctam  esse  credimus.* 

7  The  Anabaptists,  like  the  reformers,  rested  their  opinion  on  the  formal 
principle  of  Scripture.  Their  assertion  that  infant  baptism  was  not  com¬ 
manded  in  Scripture,  was  combated  by  the  reformers,  who  in  support  of  their 
opinion,  appealed  to  Mark  x.  15  ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  15  ;  Acts  ‘xvi.  15';  but  these 
passages  do  not  hold  good.  See  Zwingle' s  work  “  Yom  Touf,  vom  Wider- 
touf  and  vom  Kindertouf”  (edit,  of  Schulthess ,  ii.  2,  p.  230),  which  may  be 
compared  with  his  Latin  treatise ;  “  In  Catabaptistarum  Strophas  Elenchus.” 
(Zwingle  made  a  distinction  between  spiritual  baptism  and  baptism  by  water. 
The  more  he  regarded  the  latter  as  an  external  rite,  the  less  he  would  hesi¬ 
tate  to  administer  it  to  infants.)  He,  as  well  as  Calvin  and  the  successors  of 
Calvin  in  general,  compared  infant  baptism  to  the  analogous  rite  of  Circum¬ 
cision  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  Zwingle ,  1.  c.,  p.  297  :  “  Cir¬ 
cumcision  was  a  sign  of  faith  (Rom.  iv.  11),  and  applied  to  children.  Now 
we  have  baptism  instead  of  circumcision;  therefore  it  ought  also  to  be 

*  Osiander  interprets  the  significancy  of  the  water  in  a  peculiar  way.  It  is  to  him  a 
symbol  of  the  law.  As  the  word  of  the  law  discloses  to  man  the  wrath  of  God,  so  too  the 
water.  Man’s  body  trembles  and  shivers  with  the  cold  when  he  comes  to  the  water,  as 
in  his  soul  he  is  terrified  and  made  to  tremble  by  the  law.  But  as  the  law  does  not  de¬ 
stroy  man,  so  baptism  is  not  administered  to  drown  man ;  but  he  is  drawn  out  of  the 
water  and  lives  (Romans  vi.  3,  7).  See  Heberle  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1844,  p.  408. 


368  Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 

administered  to  children.  They  (the  Anabaptists)  cannot  well  digest  the 
syllogism,  because  it  is  so  strongly  supported  by  the  Word  of  God.”  Comp. 
Calvin ,  Inst.  iv.  15  sq.  (where  however  the  proofs  hardly  all  hold  good). 
For  the  symbolical  books  of  the  Roman  Catholic,  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
Churches,  see  Winer,  p.  130.  [Apol.  Confess.  Aug.  p.  156  :  Et  cum  pleros- 
que  alios  errores  Anabaptistarum  damnamus,  turn  hunc  quoque,  quod  dispu¬ 
tant  Baptismum  parvulorum  inutilem  esse.  Certissimum  est  enim,  quod 
promissio  salutis  pertinet  etiam  ad  parvulos.  Neque  vero  pertinet  acl  illos, 
qui  sunt  extra  ecclesiam  Christi,  ubi  nec  verbum,  nec  sacramenta  sunt,  quia 
regnum  Christi  tantum  cum  verbo,  et  sacramentis  exstitit.  Igitur  necesse 
est  baptizare  parvulos,  ut  applicitur  eis  promissio  salutis,  juxtam  mandatum 
Christi  (Matth.  xxviii.  19),  ubi  kieut  offertur  omnibus  salus,  ita  offertur  omni¬ 
bus  Baptismus,  viris,  mulieribus,  pueris,  infantibus.] ....  Luther's  Catechism 
Major,  p.  544  :  Puerorum  baptismum  Christo  placere  et  gratum  esse,  suo 
ipsius  opere  abunde  ostenditur,  nempe  quod  Deus  illorum,  non  paucos  sanc- 
tificat,  eosdemque  Spiritu  Sancte  impertivit,  qui  statim  a  bis  partu  infantes 
baptizati  sunt.  Sunt  etiam  hodie  non  parum  multi,  quos  certis  indiciis  ani- 
madvertimus  Spiritum  Sanctum  habere,  cum  doctrinse  eorum,  turn  etiam  vitae 
nomine  ;  sicut  et  nobis  gratia  Dei  datum  et  concessum  est,  nosse  Scripturas 
interpretari,  et  Christum  cognoscere,  quod  citra  Spiritum  Sanctum  nullo 
modo  fieri  posse,  nemo  dubitat.  At  si  puerorum  baptismus  Christo  non  pro- 
baretur:  nulli  horum  Spiritum  Sanctum,  aut  ne  particulam  quidem  ejus  im- 
pertiret,  atque  ut  summatim,  quod  sentio,  eloquar,  per  tot  saecula  quae  ad 
hunc  usque  diem  elapsa  sunt,  nullus  hominum  christianus  perhibendus  esset. 
Quoniam  vero  Deus  baptismum  sui  Sancti  Spiritus  donatione  confirmat,  id 
quod  in  non  Patribus. . .  .non  obscuris  arguments  intelligitur,  neque  sancta 
christianorum  ecclesia  usque  ad  consummationem  sceculi  interibit :  fateri  co- 
guntur,  Deo  baptismum  non  displicere.  Neque  enim  sibi  ipse  potest  esse 
contrarius,  aut  mendaciis  et  nequitiae  suffragari,  neque  huic  promovendae  gra- 
*  tiam  suam  ac  Spiritum  suum  impertire.  Et  haec  fere  optima  et  firmissima 
est  pro  simplicibus  et  indoctis  comprobatio.  Neque  enim  hunc  articulum  : 
Credo  ecclesiam  catholicam,  communionem  sanctorum,  etc.,  nobis  eripient 
aut  subvertent  unquam.)  For  the  views  of  the  later  Lutheran  and  Calvin- 
istic  theologians  (concerning  the  faith  of  infants,  according  to  Matth.  xviii. 
6,  and  the  responsibility  which  the  godfather  and  godmother  take  upon 
themselves),  see  De  Wette ,  pp.  179,  180. — [In  the  form  of  the  Church  of 
England  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  it  is  said,  “  this  infant  must  also  faith¬ 
fully,  for  his  part,  promise  by  you  that  are  his  sureties  [viz.,  the  godfathers 
and  godmothers],  until  he  come  of  age  to  take  it  upon  himself,  that  he  will 
renounce  the  devil  and  all  his  works,”  etc.  And  after  the  rite  the  priest  says  : 
“We  yield  tbee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleased 
thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  thine 
own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incorporate  him  into  thy  holy  church.”  In 
the  Westminster  Conf.  (ch.  xxviii.),  baptism  is  declared  to  be  “  not  only  for 
the  solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptised  into  the  visible  church,  but 
also  to  be  unto  him  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  of  his  ingraft¬ 
ing  into  Christ,  of  regeneration,  of  remission  of  sins,”  etc.  6.  “  The  efficacy 
of  baptism  is  not  tied  to  the  moment  of  time  wherein  it  is  administered  ; 


§  270.  Baptism. 


369 


yet,  notwithstanding,  by  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance,  the  grace  promised 
is  not  only  offered,  but  really  exhibited  and  conferred,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to 
such  (whether  of  age  or  infants),  as  the  grace  belongeth  unto,  according  to 
the  counsel  of  God’s  own  will,  in  his  appointed  time.”  The  right  to  admin¬ 
ister  it  to  children  is  on  the  ground  (Directory  for  Church  Worship,  ch.  vii. 
4)  11  that  the  seed  of  the  faithful  have  no  less  a  right  to  this  ordinance  than 
the  seed  of  Abraham  to  circumcision,”  etc.]  The  Socinians  and  Arminians 
approved  of  infant  baptism,  but  did  not  think  it  necessary.  Comp.  Winer , 
p.  232.  Even  from  the  custom  of  infant  baptism,  which  he  adopts,  Socinus 
argues  against  the  church  doctrine,  that  regeneration  is  connected  with  it, 
since  infants  cannot  be  regenerated  :  Titus,  iii.  5,  he  says,  refers  not  to  bap¬ 
tism  with  water,  but  to  spiritual  renovation ;  Cat.  Racov.  Qu.  348.  FocJc, 
p.  583. — Labadie  and  his  followers,  in  accordance  with  their  other  princi¬ 
ples,  not  only  rejected  infant  baptism  as  such,  but  in  general  the  baptism 
of  every  unregenerate  person,  whether  young  or  old.  See  Arnold ,  Kir- 
chen  und  Ketzergesch.  vol.  ii.  B.  xvii.  c.  21,  §  17.  Gobel ,  ubi  supra,  p.  240. 

8  Comp.  Winer,  p.  133,  note  1.  It  was  only  some  fanatical  priests,  at  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  who  in  this  respect  did  not  act  in  accordance  with 
the  principles  of  their  own  church.  The  Mennonites  at  first  re-baptised 
those  who  joined  them,  but  afterwards  discontinued  this  usage.  Nor  did 
the  followers  of  Labadie  re-baptise  those  who  had  been  baptised  in  their 
infancy.  (Arnold,  1.  c.)  Some  of  the  fanatical  sects,  however,  continued  to 
repeat  the  act  of  baptism. 

9  [See  Pusey  and  Goode ,  ubi  supra.  Roger  Laurence ,  (a  non-juring 
bishop),  Lay-Baptism  invalid,  3d  ed.,  1711,  (1842)  :  2d.  part,  1713  ;  Sup¬ 
plement,  1714.  Brett's  Letter  to  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptism,  etc.,  1711. 
G.  Bingham ,  Scholastic  History  of  Lay-Baptism,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1712.  Bp. 
IK  Fleetwood  (bp.  of  Ely),  Judgment  of  Church  of  England  in  case  of 
Lay-Baptism,  with  Letter  to  Bp.  Cosin,  Lond.,  1712  ;  anonymously  pub¬ 
lished  ;  such  baptism  not  declared  invalid  by  the  church.  Waterland ,  on 
Lay-Baptism,  Works,  vol.  x.,  ed.  of  1828.  The  Jacobites  were  most  stren¬ 
uous  on  this  matter.  A  noted  couplet  reads  : 

For  that  schismatic  Primate  and  Hollander  King, 

Are  still  in  want  of  a  christening : 

the  primate  was  Tillotson ,  who  was  not  baptised  in  the  Anglican  commu¬ 
nion  ;  and  the  King  was  William  III.,  who  had  only  received  “  Dutch  bap¬ 
tism.”] 

In  respect  to  those  who  could  rightfully  administer  baptism,  all  the  communions  that 
had  a  regular  order  of  priests  or  teachers,  assigned  baptism  to  them.  Oat.  Rom.  Qu.  18. 
Conf.  Helv.  c.  20. 

Jealous  as  is  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  other  respects  as  to  the  rights  of  the 
priestly  order,  it  here  concedes  an  exception,  because  assuming  the  absolute  necessity  of 
infant  baptism.  In  the  absence  of  the  priest,  in  cases  of  extreme  necessity,  laymen,  and 
if  there  be  no  male,  then  women,  nurses,  may  perform  the  rite:  Cat.  Rom.,  Qu.  19.  The 
Reformed  Church  declares  against  this  in  the  most  definite  manner.  Conf.  Helv.,  c.  20 : 
Docemus  baptismum  in  ecclesia  non  administrari  debere  a  muliercujis  vel  obstetricibus. 
Paulus  enim  removit  mulierculis  ab  officiis  ecclesiasticis.  Baptismus  autem  pertinet  ad 
cffieia  ecclesiastica.  [Presb.  Directory  of  Worship,  ch.  viii. :  Baptism  is  not  to  be  admin- 


370 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


istered,  in  any  case,  by  any  private  person,  but  a  minister  of  Christ,  called  to  be  the 
steward  of  the  mysteries  of  God.”] — In  practice  the  Zwinglian  Reformed  Church  is  far¬ 
thest  from  the  Catholic,  denying  not  only  the  so-called  baptism  in  cases  of  necessity,  but 
also  the  baptism  in  emergency  ( Jahtaufe ),  which  is  customary  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  and 
in  the  less  strict  Reformed  churches.  The  same  holds  of  baptism  in  the  house.  [Pr,esb. 
Directory,  ch.  vii :  “  There  may  be  cases  when  it  will  be  expedient  to  administer  the  ordi¬ 
nance  in  private  houses ;  of  which  the  minister  is  to  be  the  judge.”] 

§  271. 

ESCHATOLOGY. 

And,  lastly,  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics  were  in  almost 
perfect  accordance  as  to  the  doctrine  of  the  last  things1 *  (with  the 
exception  of  the  doctrine  concerning  purgatory,  §  263).  The  minor 
sects  also  adopted,  in  the  main,  the  same  views  respecting  the  sec¬ 
ond  advent  of  Christ  to  judge  the  world,  and  the  resurrection  of 
the  body.  As  regards  the  state  of  the  blessed  and  the  lost ,  the  opin¬ 
ions  of  the  different  denominations  were  modified  in  various  ways 
by  their  respective  creeds,3  but  these  differences  were  not  introduced 
into  the  symbolical  books.3  Calvin  combated  the  theory  called 
P  sychopannychy ,  revived  by  some  Swiss  Anabaptists  ;4 *  the  Second 
Confessio  Helvetica  expressly  rejected  the  idea  that  departed  spirits 
re-appear  on  earth.6  The  fanatical  notions  of  the  Anabaptists, 
concerning  the  restitution  of  all  things,  and  Millennarianisin, 
were  rejected  by  the  Protestants.6  Nevertheless  several  Pro¬ 
testant  writers,  on  various  occasions,  revived  Millennarian  errors, 
which  were  also  harbored  by  the  mystics.7  William  Petersen  and 
his  wife,8  misunderstanding  Spener's  doctrine  concerning  better 
times  to  come,  and  the  realization  of  God’s  kingdom  on  earth,9  an- 
announced  the  speedy  approach  of  the  Millennial  reign. 

1  Protestant  theologians  generally  enumerate  the  following  four  particu¬ 
lars  as  constituting  what  is  called  the  last  things :  mors,  resurrectio,  extre¬ 
mum  judicium,  and  consummatio  mundi :  some,  however,  adopt  other 
modes  of  reckoning.  Comp.  Be  Wette ,  p.  207. 

9  On  the  views  about  heaven  as  held,  e.  g .,  by  Lutherans  and  Reformed, 
see  SchnecJcenburger,  Ueber  den  doppelten  Stand  Christi,  p.  115. 

3  Conf.  Aug.  Art.  17  (p.  14)  :  Item  docent,  quod  Christus  apparebit  in 

consummatioue  mundi  ad  judicandum  et  mortuos  omnes  resuscitabit,  piis  et 

electis  dabit  vitam  seternam  et  perpetua  gaudia,  impios  autem  homines  ac 

diabolos  condemnabit,  ut  sine  fine  crucientur  (the  same  doctrine  is  set  forth 

in  the  other  symbolical  books). — At  a  later  period  theologians  endeavored 

(in  the  spirit  of  the  scholastics)  to  define  the  distinction  between  the  hap¬ 
piness  which  the  soul  will  enjoy  without  the  body,  and  that  of  which  it 

will  partake  aftey  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  The  general  judgment  at 
the  end  of  the  world  was  also  distinguished  from  the  judicium  extremum  par- 
ticulare  et  occultum,  which  takes  place  after  the  death  of  each  individual. 


271.  Eschatology. 


371 


4  He  wrote :  Traite  par  le  quel  est  prouve,  que  les  ames  veillent  et  vivent 
apres  qu’elles  sont  sorties  des  corps,  Orleans,  1534.  It  was  also  translated 
into  Latin  under  tlie  title  :  Psychopannychia,  quo  refellitur  eorum  error,  qui 
animos  post  mortem  usque  ad  ultimum  judicium  dormire  putant.  Par.,  1534. 
Comp.  Henry's  Calvin,  i.  p.  63,  ss. — The  question  started  by  some  of  the 
fathers,  whether  the  soul  of  itself  possesses  immortality  (vol.  i.  §  58)  was 
also  revived  in  the  seventeenth  century.  Henry  Dodwell ,  a  learned  high- 
church  divine  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  order  to  exalt  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  grace,  asserted  that  the  soul  is  itself  mortal,  but  rendered  immor¬ 
tal  by  becoming  connected  with  the  Divine  Spirit  in  baptism.  Hone  but 
the  Episcopal  church  enjoys  the  true  possession  of  this  baptismal  grace ! 
This  assertion  called  forth  several  replies.  The  controversy  lasted  princi¬ 
pally  from  the  year  1706  to  1708.  See  Lechler ,  Geschichte  des  englischen 
Deismus,  p.  211,  ss.  [ Henry  Dodwell ,  b.  1641,  d.  1711,  Camden  Prof,  at 
Oxford,  1688,  ejected  for  refusing  the  oath  to  William  and  Mary.  His  work 
was  entitled :  Epistolary  Discourse,  proving  from  the  Scriptures  and  First 
Fathers,  that  the  soul  is  a  principle  naturally  mortal,  but  immortalized,  ac¬ 
tually  by  the  pleasure  of  God,  to  punishment,  or  to  reward,  by  its  union  with 
the  divine  baptismal  Spirit.  Wherein  is  proved  that  none  have  the  power 
of  giving  this  immortalizing  spirit  since  the  Apostles,  but  only  the  Bishops, 
Bond.,  1706.  Among  the  replies  were  works  by  Samuel  Clarice ,  A  Letter 
to  Mr.  Dodwell  (Works,  iii.) ;  Edmund  Churchill ,  Charge  of  Heresy  against 
Dodwell,  1706;  Richard  Baxter ;  Daniel  Whitby ,  Reflections,  etc.,  1707. 
See  Dodwell’s  Life  by  Francis  Brokesby,  2  vols.,  1715,  1723. —  William 
Coward ,  M.  D.,  in  his  Second  Thoughts  concerning  the  Human  Soul,  by 
Estibius  Psychalettres,  1702,  2d  ed.,  1704,  defended  Materialism  :  replies  by 
Dr.  John  Broughton ,  Psych olegia ;  John  Turner ,  Vindication,  etc.,  1703. 
His  work  was  burnt  by  the  common  hangman,  by  order  of  Parliament, 
1 7 04.]  Comp.  Haumgarten ,  Geschichte  der  Religionsparteien,  p.  71. 

5  Art.  26  (in  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  purgatory)  :  Jam  quod  traditur 
de  spiritibus  vel  animabus  mortuorum  apparentibus  aliquando  viventibus,  et 
petentibus  ab  eis  oflicia,  quibus  liberentur,  deputamus  apparitiones  eas  inter 
ludibria,  artes  et  deception.es  diaboli,  qui,  ut  potest  se  transfigurare  in  angelum 
lucis,  ita  satagit  fidem  veram  vel  evertere,  vel  in  dubium  revocare.  (Deut. 
xviii.  10,  11 ;  Luc.  xvi.  31.) 

6  Conf.  Aug.  1.  c. :  Damnant  Anabaptistas,  qui  sentiunt,  hominibus  dam- 
natis  ac  diabolis  finem  poenarum  futuram  esse.  Damnant  et  alios,  qui  nunc 
spargunt  judai'cas,  opiniones,  quod  ante  resurrectionem  mortuorum,  pii  reg- 
num  mundi  occupaturi  sint,  ubique  oppressis  impiis. 

1  Valentin  Weigel ,  Jacob  Bohme ,  Felgenhauer ,  Drabicizcs,  Quirinus 
Kuhlmann ,  etc.  Comp.  Corrodi,  Geschichte  des  Chiliasmus,  and  Adelung , 
Geschichte  der  menschlichen  Narrheit. 

3  John  William  Petersen  (was  from  the  year  1688  superintendent  in 
Lilneburg,  dismissed  1692,  and  died  1727  on  his  estate  Tliymern,  near 
Zerbst),  published  from  1700-1 710  his  Mysterium  Apocatastaseos,  in  which 
the  common  millennarian  doctrine  (concerning  a  twofold  resurrection,  and 
Christ’s  visible  kingdom  on  earth,  which  will  last  a  thousand  years)  was 


372 


Fourth  Period.  The  Age  of  Symbolism. 


connected  with  Origen’s  notion  of  the  restitution  of  all  things.*  His  wife, 
Johanna  Eleonora  von  Merlau ,  agreed  with  him  in  all  points  ;  both  boasted 
of  having  received  particular  revelations  from  God.  See  Petersen’s  Auto¬ 
biography,  1717.  Corrodi,  iii.  2,  p.  133,  ss.  Schrockh ,  Kirchengesch. 
nach  der  Reformat,  viii.  p.  302,  ss. 

9  Spener,  firmly  believing  in  the  final  victory  of  Christianity,  entertained 
“  the  hope  of  better  times  J  Previous  to  the  general  judgment  the  Jews  will 
be  converted,  and  Papacy  overthrown.  But  ir  his  opinion  this  glorious 
state  does  not  abrogate  the  kingdom  of  grace,  noi  will  it  manifest  itself  in  a 
secular  manner.  He  did  not  venture  to  determine  anything  respecting  the 
exact  period  of  time  (the  period  of  a  thousand  years).  “  But  his  opponents 
found  no  difficulty  in  drawing  invidious  inferences  from  the  moderate  hopes 
of  Spener  Schrockh,  viii.  p.  282. — The  views  of  Joachim  Lange,  concerning 
the  Revelation  of  John,  were  more  literal  than  those  of  his  master;  see 
Corrodi ,  iii.  1,  p.  108,  ss.  , 

*  He  also  held  the  idea  of  Christ’s  heavenly  (divine)  humanity,  referred  to  in  §  266, 
aot©  1. 


FIFTH  PERIOD, 


FROM  THE  YEAR  1720  TO  THE  PRESENT  DAY. 


THE  AGE  OF  CRITICISM,  OF  SPECULATION,  AND  OF  THE 
ANTAGONISM  BETWEEN  FAITH  AND  KNOWLEDGE,  PHI¬ 
LOSOPHY  AND  CHRISTIANITY,  REASON  AND  REVELA¬ 
TION,  AND  OF  ATTEMPTS  TO  RECONCILE 
THESE  ANTAGONISMS. 


A.  GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINES  DURING  THE 

FIFTH  PERIOD. 

§  272. 

INTRODUCTION. 

J.  A.  Von  JEinem,  Versuch  einer  Geschichte  des  18  Jahrhunderts.  Leipz.,  It 76  ss 
Schlegel,  Kirchengeschichte  des  18  Jahrhunderts,  Heilbr.,  1784  ss.,  ii.,  continued  by 
Fraas.  Schlosser}  Geschichte  des  18  und  19  Jahrhunderts,  Heidelberg,  1836  ss.,  2d 
vol.  to  the  year  1763.  [5  vols.  to  1797 ;  3d  ed.,  1843;  transl.  by  Davidson,  Lond. 

6vols.,  1846.]  J.  K.  L.  Gieseler ,  Kirchengescli.  d.  neusten  Zeit,  von  1814  bis  auf 
die  Gegenwart,  Bonn,  1845  [to  be  comprised  in  vol.  v.  of  the  New  York  translation 
of  Gieseler.  Hagenbach,  Kirchengesch.  des  18th  und  19th  Jahr.,  2  Bde.,  1848.  Neu- 
decker,  Geschichte  des  evang.  Protest,  in  Deutschland,  2  Thle.  Lpz.,  1845.]  Comp, 
the  literature  in  Ease's  Church  Hist.,  New  York  translation,  p.  483,  and  in  Niedner , 
Kirchengeschichte,  8.  795.  [Comp,  the  general  histories  of  Alison,  De  Koch ,  Eaumer, 
Eeeren  und  Ukert's ,  Staatsgeschichten,  etc.  C.  L.  Michelet ,  Gesch.  der  Menscheit 
m  ihrem  Entwicklungsgange  seit  1775  bis  auf  die  neuesten  Zeiten.  2  Bde.,  Berl., 
1860.  G.  G.  Gervinus ,  Geschichte  des  19.  Jahr.  seit  d.  Weiner  Vertragen,  4  Bde., 
1859.] 

J.  K.  L.  Gieseler ,  Riickblick  auf  die  theologische  und  kirchliche  Entwicklung  der  letzen 
50  Jahre.,  Gott.,  1837  (kritische  Prediger-Bibliothek,  xviii.,  part  5,  p.  908  ss.)  On 
the  other  side:  Tholuck ,  Abriss  und  Geschichte  der  Umwalzung,  welche  seit  1750 
auf  dem  Gebiet  der  Theologie  in  Deutschland  stattgefunden,  in  the  Berliner  evange- 
lische  Kirchenzeitung,  Dec.  1830  (see  his  Yermischte  Schriften,  vol.  2.)  [  Tholuck' s 

History  of  Theology  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  in  Theol.  Essays  from  Princeton  Re- 


374  Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 

view,  New  York,  1846,  pp.  524-608.  Leonard  Wood,  in  Preface  to  translation  o* 
Knapp’s  Theology,  1831.  E.  B.  Pusey,  An  Historical  Inquiry  into  the  Probabh 
Causes  of  the  Rationalistic  Character  lately  predominant  in  the  Theology  of  Germany. 
To  which  is  prefixed  a  letter  from  Prof.  Sack  on  Rev.  J.  H.  Rose’s  Discourses  on 
German  Protestantism,  Lond.,  1828  ;  Part  2.  An  Explanation  of  the  Yiews  miscon¬ 
ceived  by  Mr.  Rose,  1830.]  Meander,  Das  verflossene  halbe  Jahrhundert,  in  Zeitschrift 
f.  christl.  Wissenschaft,  1  Jahrg.,  p.  215  sq.  The  Anti-Rationalistic  Literature  from 
the  Beginning  of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  in  Tholuck's  Anzeiger,  1836,  No.  15-18. 
K.  F.  A.  Kahnis ,  Der  innere  Gang  des  deutsclien  Protestantismus  seit  Mitte  des  vori- 
gen  Jahrhunderts,  Leipz.,  1854  [translated  by  Mayer ,  Edinb.  1856;  2d  ed.  of  original, 
I860].  Karl  Schwarz ,  Zur  Geschichte  der  neuesten  Theologie,  Leipz.,  1836,  2te 
Aufl.,  1857.  [  Wangemenn,  Sieben  Bucher  Prenssischer  Kirchengesh. ;  Kampf  um  die 
lutherische  Kirche  im  19.  Jahrh.  2  Bde.,  Berl.,  1858.  Jas.  Edm.  Jorg,  (Rom.  Cath.) 
Gesch.  des  Protestantismus  in  seiner  neuesten  Entwicklung,  2  Bde.,  Freiburg,  1858. 
Gregoire,  Historie  des  Sectes  religieuses  depuis  le  Commencement  du  Siecle  dernier, 
5  vols.,  Paris,  1828.  Eenrion ,  Historie  generate  de  l’eglise  pendant  les  18  et  19  Sie- 
cles,  Paris,  1836.  E.  H.  Dewar,  Hist.  Germ.  Protest.,  Oxf.,  1844.] 

The  spirit  of  investigation  having  been  awakened,  and  the  belief 
in  human  authority  shaken,  by  the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  a  more  liberal  and  progressive  movement  was  inaugurated. 
But  as  the  Reformers,  at  the  same  time,  declared,  in  the  most  de¬ 
cided  terms,  that  no  other  foundation  can  be  laid  than  that  which  is 
laid  in  Christ,  and  strengthened  the  belief  in  the  divine  authority  of 
Scripture,  they  of  course  also  directed  the  attention  of  Christians  to 
the  early  history  of  the  Christian  Church.  Neither  of  these  two  points 
should  be  overlooked,  if  we  would  form  a  correct  judgment  of  Pro¬ 
testantism,  and  its  importance  in  history.  During  the  second  half 
of  the  sixteenth,  and  the  whole  of  the  seventeenth  century,  most 
theologians  had  lost  sight  of  its  true  significance  as  regards  the 
former  aspect,  by  again  submitting  to  the  yoke  of  human  authority, 
and  thus  preventing  all  progress.  The  very  opposite  tendency  cha¬ 
racterizes  the  eighteenth  century.  Theologians  and  philosophers, 
animated  by  an  ardent  desire  after  enlightenment  and  spiritual  lib¬ 
erty,  gradually  renounced  their  allegiance  to  the  only  foundation  on 
which  the  Reformers  had  thought  it  safe  to  build,  and  for  which,  no 
less  than  for  liberty,  the  martyrs  of  the  Protestant  Church  had  shed 
their  blood.  The  authority  of  Holy  Writ  was  by  degrees  impaired, 
together  with  that  of  the  symbolical  books,  and  not  long  after,  those 
doctrines  which  the  earlier  Protestants,  as  well  as  Roman  Catholics, 
had  rejected,  as  opposed  to  Christianity,  became  prevalent  in  various 
sections  of  the  Church.  But,  as  in  the  seventeenth  century  there 
were  not  wanting  excitable  and  free-thinking  spirits,  though  the 
majority  were  stable,  so,  too,  in  the  midst  of  the  contests  and  storms 
of  recent  times,  there  were  found  men  of  a  conservative  tendency  ; 
and  attempts  were  made  to  restore  what  had  been  destroyed,  and  to 
bring  about  a  reconciliation  between  the  two  extremes.  It  is  the 
task  of  the  history  of  doctrines  during  this  last  period,  to  represent 
this  remarkable  struggle  in  all  its  details,  and  to  treat  of  its  elements 


§  273.  Influence  of  Philosophy  upon  Theology.  375 

separately,  as  well  as  in  their  relation  to  each  other.  This  delinea¬ 
tion,  in  its  historical  aspect,  is  nearly  identical  with  the  course  of 
recent  church  history  ;  as  to  its  substance,  it  leads  directly  into  the 
sphere  of  dogmatic  theology  the  nearer  it  approaches  the  present 
times. 

[“The  Eeformation,  from  its  very  commencement,  included  a 
double  interest,  viz.,  that  of  universal  reason  as  well  as  the  specifi¬ 
cally  religious.  In  the  consciousness  of  its  freedom,  the  subjective 
spirit,  moved  by  the  pressure  of  the  need  of  salvation,  emancipated 
itself  from  everything  which  was  in  irreconcilable  opposition  to  the 
religious  consciousness.  The  freedom  of  Scriptural  interpretation 
had  again  became  limited  by  the  dogmatic  pressure  of  the  confessions 
of  faith ....  A  conflict  must  ensue  with  a  domineering  system,  which 
did  not  allow  the  freedom  of  the  individual.  But  the  relation  was 
different  so  far  as  this,  that  the  principle  of  self-emancipation  was 
not  now  to  be  battled  for  ;  what  had  been  already  gained  was  to  be 
grasped  in  its  full  significancy,  and  carried  out  to  its  practical  and 

valid  results.”  Baur ,  Dogmengeschichte,  343-4] 

% 

» 

§  273. 

INFLUENCE  OF  PHILOSOPHY  UPON  THEOLOGY. 

An  invincible  testimony  to  the  essential  practical  efficiency  of 
Christianity  is  given  in  the  fact,  that  it  owed  neither  its  origin,  nor 
the  restoration  of  purer  principles,  to  a  system  of  philosophy.1  At 
the  same  time,  its  more  profound  speculative  import,  and  high 
importance  in  a  philosophical  point  of  view,  are  clearly  proved  by 
the  fact,  that  philosophy  has  always  put  itself  into  either  hostile  or 
friendly  relations  with  theology,  endeavoring  either  to  destroy  it,  or 
to  interweave  it  with  its  own  speculations  and  dialectics.2  The 
grand  attempt  made  by  the  scholastics  appeared  at  first  successful. 
But  after  its  degeneracy  into  the  vain  subtilties  of  the  schools  had 
brought  philosophy  into  disrepute  among  evangelical  Christians,  the 
Protestant  Church,  which  sprung  up  in  opposition  to  this  scholas¬ 
ticism,  kept  aloof  for  a  long  time  from  the  speculations  of  philoso¬ 
phers,  entrenched  in  its  strict  systematic  theology.3  Yet  it  must 
also  be  admitted,  that  Protestantism  itself  awakened  modern  phi¬ 
losophy,  and  furthered  its  development. 

1  Comp.  vol.  i.,  §  17,  and  vol.  ii.,  §  211. 

3  It  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  phenomena  of  Neoplatonism,  Gnosticism, 
and  the  philosophy  of  the  school  of  Alexandria  during  the  first  period,  and 
to  the  scholasticism  of  the  third  period. 

8  Comp.  §  238. 


376 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


§  274. 

THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  WOLF. 

¥ 

*  Wuttke ,  FL,  Christian  Wolffs  eigene  Lebensbeschreibung,  Leipz.,  1841.  Ludovici,  Ent* 
wurf  einer  Historie  der  Wolfischen  Philosophie,  Leipz.,  1737,  iii.  Niedner ,  Kirchen- 
geschichte,  755  sq.  [ Puscy ,  ubi  supra.  Feuerbach ,  Darstellung  d.  Leibnitzsclien 
Phil.,  1837.  Kuno  Fischer ,  Geschichte  der  neueren  Phil.,  Bd.  2,  1855.] 

It  was  not  until  the  philosophy  of  Leibnitz  (in  the  modified  form 
in  which  it  was  presented  by  Christian  Wolf),1  had  obtained  more 
general  authority,  that  it  extended  its  influence  also  to  theology,  as 
the  Leibnitz- Wolfian  system.  The  attempt  to  establish  a  system  of 
natural  religion,  on  the  principle  of  demonstration  (independently 
of  revelation,  but  not  in  direct  opposition  to  it),2  met  with  a  very 
different  reception  among  the  various  parties  of  the  church.  One 
class  of  theologians,  the  pietists  in  particular,  were  not  only  hostile 
to  such  innovations,  but  also  persecuted  their  advocates.3  On  the 
contrary,  the  adherents  of  that  moderate  and  rational  form  of  ortho¬ 
doxy  which,  towards  the  commencement  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
was  represented  by  some  able  and  learned  men,4 *  hastened  to  adopt 
the  demonstrative  method,  thinking  that  they  might  make  use  of 
natural  theology  as  a  convenient  stepping-stone  for  revealed  religion, 
and  thus  gain  a  solid  foundation  for  the  truths  of  the  latter.6 

1  Wolf  was  born  a.  d.  1679,  in  Breslau,  appointed  professor  of  mathemat¬ 
ics  in  the  University  of  Halle  (1707),  dismissed  from  office  by  the  order  of 
King  Frederic  William  I.  (1723),  banished  (upon  pain  of  death),  lived  some_ 
time  in  Cassel  and  Marburg,  was  recalled  (1740)  by  King  Frederic  II., 
appointed  Chancellor,  and  died  1754. 

2  Among  Wolfs  works  are:  Verniinftige  Gedanken  von  Gott,  der  Welt 
und  der  Seele  des  Menschen,  auch  alien  Lingen  iiberhaupt,  1719.  Anmer- 
kungen  liber  die  verniinftingen  Gedanken,  etc.  Theologia  Naturalis,  1736, 
etc. 

3  One  of  the  principal  opponents  of  Wolf  was  Joachim  Lange  (born 

1670,  died  1744,  as  a  professor  in  the  University  of  Halle.)  He  wrote  : 
Causa  Dei  et  Religionis  adversus  Naturalismum,  Atheismum,  Judseos,  Soci- 
nianos  et  Pontificios,  Hal.,  1726,  27,  iii.  8vo,  and  several  other  treatises.  On 
the  progress  of  the  controversy,  and  the  writings  to  which  it  gave  rise,  see 
the  work  of  Wuttke  mentioned  above  (in  which  many  statements  made  by 
previous  writers  are  corrected).  Several  other  writers  joined  Lange  in  com¬ 
bating  the  principles  propounded  by  Wolf,  e.  g.  Fra.ncke ,  M.  Daniel 

Strdhler ,  etc.  Valentine  Loscher  (died  1749),  and  John  Francis  Buddeus 
of  Jena  (he  wrote :  Bedenken  liber  Wolfs  Philosophie,  1724,)  as  well  as  the 

University  of  Upsal,  in  Sweden,  pronounced  against  him,  not  to  mention  the 


377 


§  261.  The  Philosophy  of  Wolf. 

N 

Roman  Catholics,  headed  by  the  Jesuits ;  though  some  of  the  latter  made 
use  of  the  philosophy  of  Wolf  in  their  own  schools.* 

4  Previous  to  the  time  of  Wolf,  Pufendorf  had  proposed  to  apply  the 
mathematico-demonstfative  method  of  argumentation  to  Christian  theology, 
expecting  to  derive  great  advantage  from  such  a  treatment.  See  his  Epis- 
tola  ad  Fratrem,  in  Actorum  Erudit.  Lips,  supplem.  Tom.  ii.  Sect.  2,  p.  98  ; 
Heinrich ,  p.  438.  About  the  time  of  the  rise  of  the  Wolfian  philosophy 
several  other  theologians  had  commenced  (apart  from  what  was  done  by 
Pufendorf)  to  treat  systematic  theology  in  a  more  liberal  spirit,  and  less  de¬ 
pendent  upon  traditional  authorities.  This  shows  that  Wolf,  though  in  a 
stricter  method,  acted  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  age.  Among 
these  theologians  were  :  Christian  Matthew  Pfaff  (born  1686,  died  1760) : 
Institutiones  Theologize  Dogmat.  et  Moral.,  Tub.,  1720  :  even  J.  F.  Huddeus 
(born  1667,  died  1729),  despite  his  opposition  to  Wolf  (see  the  previous  sec¬ 
tion),  in  his  Institutiones  Theologize  dogmat.  Lips.,  1723,  ’24,  ’27,  ’41,  4to. 
Christian  Eberhard  Weissmann  (born  1677,  died  1747):  Institutiones  Theo¬ 
logize  exegetico-dogmaticze.  Tub.  1739,  4to.  J.  Lorenz  von  Mosheim  (born 
1694,  died  1755):  Elementa  Theologize  Dogmat.,  edited  by  Windheim , 
Norimb.,  1758,  8. — In  the  Reformed  Church,  in  addition  to  J.  A.  Turretine 
and  Samuel  Werenfels  (comp.  §  225),  J.  F.  Osterwald ,  pastor  of  Neufchatel 
(born  1633,  died  1747),  contributed  most  to  the  transition  to  a  new  state  of 
things.  His  Compendium  Theologize,  Basil.,  1639, 8,  remained  for  a  consider¬ 
able  time  the  text-book  of  theology  for  the  Swiss  Calvinists.  [Transl.  iuto 
English  by  Rev.  John  McMains,  Glasgow,  1737  ;  a  Hartford  (N.  E.)  edition, 
1786.] 

6  Among  the  Lutheran  theologians  who  adopted  the  method  of  Wolf, 
were:  Jacob  Carpov  (professor  of  mathematics  in  Weimar,  born  1699,  died 
1768) :  QEconomia  Salutis  Novi  Test,  sive  Theologia  Revel,  dogmatica 
methodo  scientifica  adornata,  Vimar.,  1737-65,  iv.  4.  John  Gustavus  Rein - 
beck  (born  1682,  died  1741,  as  an  ecclesiastical  counsellor  in  Berlin;  he 
enjoyed  great  reputation  as  a  preacher) :  Betrachtungen  liber  die  in  der 
Augsb.  Conf.  enthaltenen  und  damit  verkniipften  gottlichen  Wahrheiten, 
1731-41,  iv.  4.f  G.  II,  Ribow  (born  1703,  died  1774)  :  Institut.  Theol. 
Dogm.  methodo  demonstrativa  traditze,  Gott.,  1740,  41.  Israel  Gottlieb 
Canz  (born  1690,  died  1753)  :  Compend.  Theol.  purioris,  Tub.,  1752  + 

*  The  danger  which  many  apprehended  from  the  spread  of  the  Wolfian  philosophy, 
was  not  a  mere  fancy.  “  It  cannot  well  be  said  that  the  philosophy  of  Wolf  endangered 
orthodox  theology  in  a  direct  manner  :  on  the  contrary ,  we  find  that  many  of  the  followers  of 
Wolf  either  adopted  the  principle  of  indijferentism  as  to  positive  religion ,  or  formally  con¬ 
firmed  it.  But  the  distinction  introduced  by  Wolf  between  natural  and  revealed  religion ,  i.  e. 
between  religion  which  may  be  proved  by  demonstration ,  and  religion  ivhich  must  be  received 
by  faith,  prepared  the  way  for  the  ascendency  of  the  deistic  principle  of  natural  religion  over 
the  principles  of  revealed  religion Lechler ,  Geschichte  des  Deismus,  p.  448.  Comp. 
Tholuxk,  1.  c.,  p.  10-23.  Saintes-Ficker  (see  the  literature  of  the  next  section),  p.  54  sq. 

\  Immediately  after  the  publication  of  the  first  volume  of  this  work,  the  opponents  of 
Wolf  expressed  their  belief  that  its  author  was  either  a  Socinian  or  a  deist,  who  neither 
would  nor  could  discuss  the  doctrine  concerning  Christ.  But  their  suspicions  were  un¬ 
founded.  See  Heinrich ,  p.  444. 

%  He  also  wrote :  Philosophise  Loibnitzianse  et  Wolfianse  Usus  in  Theologia  per  pra> 
cipua  Fidei  Capita,  Lips.,  1749.  (This  work  enjoyed  at  the  ume  a  great  celebrity.) 


378 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Peter  Peusch  (born  1603,  died  1757) :  Introductio  in  Theol.  revelatam. 
J.  E .  Schubert  ( born  1 71 7,  died  1774):  Introductio  in  Theol.  rev.  Jen., 
1749,  8,  and  Institutiones  theol.  dogm.,  1749,  1753,  8.  Siegmund  Jacob 
Baumgarten  (born  1705,  died  1757)  :  Theses.  Theol.  seu  Elementa  Doc- 
trinae  sanctions  ad  Duct.  Breviarii  J.  A.  Freylinghausen ,  Hal.,  1746,  ’50,  ’67, 
8vo. — Evangelische  Glaubenslehre  mit  Einleitung  von  Semler ,  Halle,  1759, 
’60,  iii.  4.  On  the  great  influence  which  Baumgarten  exerted  upon  his  age, 
see  Tholuck ,  ii.  p.  12. — Several  Calvinistic  theologians  also  followed  the 
method  of  Wolf,  more  or  less  closely,  such  as  Daniel  Wyttenbach  of  Berne 
(born  1706,  died  1779,  as  a  professor  in  Marburg)  :  Tentamen  Theol.  Dogm. 
Methodo  scientifica  pertractatae,  Bern.,  1741,  42,  iii.  8.  Francof.  a.  M., 
1747,  iv.  8.  John  Frederic  Stupfer,  of  Berne  (died  1775):  Institutiones 
Theol.  Polemicae,  Tur.,  1743-47,  v.  8.  Grundlegung  zur  wahren  Relig.  (a 
popular  treatise),  Ziir.,  1746-53,  xii.  8.  J.  Chr.  Beck ,  of  Basle  (born  1711, 
died  1785)  :  Fundamenta  Theol.  Naturalis  et  Revelatse,  Bas.,  1757.  (Comp, 
the  Prolegomena  to  this  work  ;  in  which  the  author  expressly  recommends 
the  handling  of  natural  religion  as  preparatory  to  that  of  revealed  religion, 
pp.  25,  26)  ;  Synopsis  Institutionum  universae  theologiae,  1765;  and  Samuel 
Endemann  (born  1727,  died  1789,  as  a  professor  in  Marburg)  :  Institutiones 
Theol.  Dogmat.  T.  I.  H.,  Hanov.,  1777,  8. 


§  275. 

INFLUENCE  OF  DEISM  AND  NATURALISM.  RATIONALIZINO  ATTEMPTS. 

Lerminier ,  De  l’lnfluence  de  la  Philosophie  du  18°  Siecle,  Paris,  1833,  Leipz.,  1835.  Vil- 
lemain ,  Cours  de  Litterature  Franfaise;  Tableau  du  18°  Siecle,  Paris,  1838,  Tom.  ii. 
p.  222,  ss.  Henke ,  Kirchengeschichte,  vol.  vi.  edited  by  Vater.  Staudlin,  Geschichte 
des  Rationalismus  und  Supranaturalismus,  Gott.,  1826,  p.  119,  ss.  Amand  Saintes , 
Histoire  Critique  du  rationalisme  en  Allemagne,  Paris  et  Leips.,  1841 ;  in  German  t >y 
G.  G.  Picker ,  Lpz.,  1847.  *Schlosser,  Geschichte  des  18  Jahrhunderts,  vol.  i.  p. 
447 ;  ii.  p.  443,  ss.  Hagenbach ,  Gesch.  des  18  und  19  Jahrb.  2te  Ausg.,  Lpz.,  1848. 
Comp.  §  238.  [ Pusey ,  ubi  supra.  John  Leland ,  Deistical  Writers,  2,  1754,  new  ed. 

1837.  G.  V.  Leckler ,  Gesch.  des  englischen  Deismus,  Stuttg.,  1851.  W.  Van  Mil- 
dert ,  Rise  and  Progress  of  Infidelity  (Boyle  Lectures,  1802-4),  2  vols.,  Oxf.,  1838. 
Mark  Pattison,  Tendencies  of  Religious  Thought  in  England,  in  Essays  and  Reviews, 
1860,  pp.  279-362.] 

While  natural  religion  and  theology,  in  a  strict  and  sometimes 
pedantic  scientific  form,  was  thus  in  Germany  retained  within  its 
proper  limits,  and  made  honorably  subservient  to  revelation,  the 
principles  of  Deism  and  Naturalism,  developed  in  the  preceding 
period,  gained  numerous  adherents  in  England  and  France,1  and 
soon  threatened  to  make  their  appearance  also  in  Germany.3  Dur¬ 
ing  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  most  powerful 
attacks  upon  positive  Christianity  were  made  by  the  anonymous 
author  of  the  Wolfenbuttelsche  Fragmente  (i.  e.  fragments  of  Wol- 
fenhiittel),3  which  gave  rise  to  fundamental  controversies  as  to  the 


§  275.  Deism  and  Naturalism. 


379 


rights  of  reason  in  matters  of  faith.4  The  spirit  of  the  age,  in¬ 
fluenced  as  it  was  by  Frederic  the  Great ,  King  of  Prussia,6  also 
contributed  to  the  spread  of  deistic  tendencies,  especially  among  the 
higher  classes.  Not  only  the  heroes  of  literature,  during  the  eigh¬ 
teenth  century,0  but  some  ministers  of  the  church,  endeavored  grad¬ 
ually  to  introduce  such  principles  among  the  educated,  and  even 
among  the  people.7  [“  The  more  earnest  character  of  English  Deism 
at  length  passed  over,  even  among  the  deists  themselves,  into  the 
shallow  frivolities  of  French  naturalism,  materialism,  and  atheism, 
and  into  the  destructive  tendencies  of  Voltaire  and  the  Encyclope¬ 
dists,  whose  influence  reached  Germany.  The  Wolfenbtittel  Frag¬ 
ments  were  the  German  product  of  the  energetic  character  of 
English  Deism  ;  and  in  these  and  kindred  controversies,  carried  on 
by  Lessing ,  with  all  the  power  of  his  soul,  the  German  mind  al¬ 
ready  showed,  that  it  was  able  to  grapple  with  the  boldest  doubts, 
and  that  it  could  assume  no  other  than  a  critical  relation  to  the 
contents  of  revelation.”  Baur}  p.  347.] 

1  Comp.  §  238,  and  Lechleds  Geschichte  des  Deismus.  To  the  number 
of  those  English  deists  (some  of  whom,  as  Wools  ton,  Tindal ,  and  Chubb , 
come  over  into  the  present  period),  whose  names  have  been  already  men¬ 
tioned,  may  be  added  Viscount  Bolingbroke  and  David  Hume.  [ Henry  St. 
John,  Viscount  Bolingbrolce,  “the  last  of  the  deists,”  b.  1678,  Secretary  of 
War,  1704-7,  of  State,  1710-15,  impeached  for  becoming  Secretary  to 
Charles  Stewart,  d.  1751.  Letters  in  the  Use  and  Study  of  History,  first 
publ.  in  The  Craftsman,  1725.  Life  b y  .Goldsmith,  1809;  by  G.  W.  Cooke , 
2  vols.,  1835.  Warburton’s  Letters  to  Hurd,  and  View  of  Bolingbroke’s 
Philos.,  1754-5.  LelanJ’s  Deistical  Writers,  i.  371  to  the  end,  and  ii.  to  p. 
350.  Works,  5,  4to,  1754;  8,  8vo,  1809;  Correspondence,  2,  4to,  1798, 
4,  8vo. — David  Hume,  b.  1 71 1,  d.  1787,  Treatise  of  Human  Nature,  1737  ; 
Essays,  1741  ;  Philos.  Essays,  1748  (a  new  edition  of  the  Treatise) ;  Princi¬ 
ples  of  Morals,  1751  ;  Polit.  Disc.,  1752  ;  Natural  Hist,  of  Religion,  1755  ;' 
Hist,  of  England,  1754-62.  Philosophical  Works,  Edinb.,  4  vols.,  1826, 
Boston,  1854.  Posthumous,  Dialogue  concerning  Natural  Relig.,  1779  ; 
Essays  on  Suicide,  1783.  Comp.  Mackintosh  and  Stewart,  Diss.  on  Ethical 
Philos,  prefixed  to  Encyc.  Britan.,  and  in  their  respective  works ;  Cousin’s 
Hist,  of  Mod.  Philos.,  etc.  Hume's  Essays  on  Miracles  were  answered  by 
Geo.  Campbell ,  Leland  in  his  Deistical  Writer,  Paley,  Douglas,  and  many 
others.  The  Presb.  General  Assembly,  1775,  condemned  his  writings  and 
threatened  excommunication.  Life  and  Correspondence,  edited  by  T.  H. 
Hurton,  2,  8vo.,  Edinb.,  1847.]  Bolingbroke  may  be  said  to  form  the  tran¬ 
sition  to  the  frivolous  naturalism  and  gross  materialism  of  the  French  phil¬ 
osophers,  whose  principles  were  set  forth  in  the  Systemede  la  Nature  (1740), 
in  -the  works  of  Condillac  (died  1780),  La  Mettrie  (died  1751),  Helvetius 
(died  1771),  Voltaire  (died  1778),  and  in  those  of  the  so  called  Encyclope¬ 
dists  (Encyclopedic,  ou  Dictionnaire  Universel,  etc.,  1751),  d? Alembert  (died 
1783),  and  Diderot  (died  1784).  Jean  Jacques  Bousseau  (died  1778  : — 


380 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Emile,  ou  Confessions  d’un  Yicaire  Savoyen)  differed  from  these  as  to  his 
personal  character  and  tendency,  hut  was  also  opposed  to  positive  religion. 
— For  a  comparison  instituted  between  the  English  and  French  deists,  see 
Henke,  1.  c.  §  10.  At  all  events,  the  more  profound  English  philosophers 
exerted  a  far  more  considerable  influence  upon  the  learned  men  of  Germany, 
than  the  Frenchmen,  whose  writings  met  with  greater  success  among  the 
laymen.  Only  the  Protestant  Rousseau  awakened  German  sympathies. 
Comp.  Tholuclc ,  ii.  p.  33. 

8  It  is  a  remarkable  circumstance,  which,  however,  admits  of  a  satisfac¬ 
tory  explanation,  that  even  some  of  the  German  mystics  adopted  deistic 
principles,  e.  g.  John  Conrad  Dippel ,  sureiamed  the  Christian  Democritus 
(died  1734),  and  J.  Chr.  Edelmann  (born  1698,  died  1767).  The  latter,  after 
having  been  for  a  short  time  connected  with  the  Illuminati,  followed  in  the 
steps  of  Knutzen  (comp.  Henke,  §  23,  6).  Concerning  the  history  of  his 
life,  and  his  work  (Moses  mit  aufgedecktem  Angesicht,  Freib.,  1740,  ii.  8), 
see  J.  H.  Pratje ,  Historische  Nachricht  von  Edelmann,  Hamb.,  1785,  and 
W.  Elster ,  Erinnerungen  an  J.  C.  Edelmann,  Clausth.,  1839. — Chr.  Tob. 
Damm  (born  1699,  died  1778),  a  philologist,  wrote  (1765)  a  work  upon  the 
ISTew  Testament  (under  royal  sanction),  founded  on  deistic  principles,  and 
reduced  the  religion  of  Christ  to  mere  natural  religion  in  his  works :  Ueber 
den  historischen  Glauben,  1772,  ii.,  and  Ueber  die  Religion,  1773. — The 
works  of  the  English  deists  were  also  translated  into  German,  and  welcomed 
with  eagerness  by  numbers.  See  the  Bekenntnisse  of  Laukhard ,  quoted 
by  Lechler ,  p.  451  ;  Tholuck ,  ii.  p.  31.  A  catalogue  of  the  most  impor¬ 
tant  deistic  writings  is  given  by  Eaumgarten ,  Geschichte  der  Religionspar- 
teien,  p.  129. 

3  C.  E.  Lessing  published  a  series  of  treatises,  containing  essays  and  no¬ 
tices,  under  the  title  :  “  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  der  Litteratur,  aus  den 
Schatzen  der  herzoglichen  Bibliothek  zu  Wolfenbuttel.”  The  third  of  these 
treatises  appeared  1774,  under  the  title  :  Fragment  eines  Ungenannten,  von 
Duldung  der  Deisten.  (A  fragment  concerning  the  toleration  of  the  deists, 
composed  by  an  anonymous  writer.)  The  fourth  treatise,  which  was  pub¬ 
lished  1777,  contained  five  “fragmente” — viz.  1.  Yon  der  Yerschreiung  der 
Vernunft  auf  den  Kanzeln.  (Concerning  the  denunciation  of  reason  from 
the  pulpit.)  2.  Uninoglichkeit  einer  Offenbarung,  die  alle  Menschen  auf 
eine  gegrtindete  Art  glauben  konnten.  (The  impossibility  of  a  revelation 
on  which  all  men  can  found  a  reasonable  belief.)  3.  Durchgang  der  Israel- 
iten  durchs  rothe  Meer.  (The  passage  of  the  Israelites  through  the  Red 
Sea.)  4.  Dass  die  Bucher  des  Alten  Testaments  nicht  geschrieben  worden, 
eine  Religion  zu  offenbaren.  (A  proof  that  the  Old  Test.  Scriptures  were 
not  written  in  order  to  reveal  a  particular  religion.)  5.  Ueber  die  Aufer- 
stehungsgeschichte.  (Concerning  the  history  of  Christ’s  resurrection.)  Last 
of  all  was  published  (1778)  the  boldest  work:  Yon  dem  Zwecke  Jesu  und 
seiner  Jtinger,  noch  ein  Fragment  des  Wolfenbuttler  Ungenannten.  (Con¬ 
cerning  the  object  of  Christ  and  his  disciples,  another  fragment  published 
by  the  anonymous  Wolfenbtittel  writer.)  After  Lessing’s  death,  C.  A.  E. 
Schmidt  (who  was  said  to  be  a  layman)  published  other  works  by  that 
anonymous  writer  (they  referred  for  the  most  part  to  the  Old  Test.).  It  is 


§  275.  Deism  and  Naturalism. 


381 


(now  decided  that  Lessing  was  not  the  author  of  these  works.  They  are 
generally  ascribed  to  H.  S.  Beimarus  (born  1694  in  Hamburgh,  died  1768, 
who  wrote  a  system  of  natural  religion.)  For  further  particulars  as  to  the 
authorship,  see  Illgen's  historische  Zeitschrift,  1839,  part  4,  p.  97,  ss.  In 
reply  Lachmann ,  in  vol.  xii.  of  Lessing’s  works  :  Guhrauer ,  Bodin’s  Hepta- 
plomeres,  Berlin,  1841,  p.  257,  sq. 

4  Controversy  between  Lessing  and  Gotze,  pastor  primarius  in  Hamburg. 
* — Nathan  der  Weise  (1679.) — He  further  published  Erziehung  des  Men- 
schengeschlechts,  1780 :  on  the  question,  whether  this  was  on  the  basis  of  a 
work  by  Thcer ,  see  Illgen's  Zeitschrift,  1839. — In  the  year  1784,  appeared 
his :  Theologischer  Nachlass  (Posthumous  writings.)  As  regards  the  rela¬ 
tion  in  which  Lessing  stood  to  Christianity,  see  Twesten ,  Dogmatik,  i  p.  19. 
Bohr ,  kleine  theologische  Schriften,  1841,  p.  158,  ss.  Karl  Schwarz ,  Les¬ 
sing  als  Theologe,  Halle,  1854.  [His  Education  of  the  Human  Pace  is 
translated  in  part,  in  Hedge's  Prose  Writers  of  Germany,  Phil.,  1858,  pp. 
91-5.  On  Nathan  the  Wise,  see  Jeffrey ,  in  Edinb.  Review,  vol.  8.  Retro¬ 
spective  Review,  10.]  Wackernagel ,  Lessing’s  Nathan  der  Weise,  in  Gelzer  s 
Mon.  Bl.  vi.  4.  [ A .  W.  JBohtz ,  Protestanti sinus  und  Nathan  der  Weise, 
Gotting.,  1854.] 

6  On  the  stay  which  Voltaire  made  at  the  Prussian  court,  and  the 
literary  labors  of  Frederic  II.,  see  A .  F.  Bits'  king,  Character  Friedrich 
II.,  Halle,  1788.  Breuss ,  Friedrich  der  Grosse.  5.  voll.  Berlin,  1833,  34. 

6  “The  ‘  Allgemeine  deutsche  Bibliothekj  edited  by  Nicolai ,  which  during 
the  first  period  of  its  existence  (it  was  founded  1765)  enjoyed  unlimited  au~ 
thority  in  the  literary  world ,  combated  the  received  faith  of  the  church  in  an 
insidious ,  hypocritical  manner ,  and  denounced  everything  which  was  above  its 
own  prosaic  views  of  religion  and  morals ,  as  superstition  or  Jesuitism 
Hase ,  Church  History,  p.  539.  Deistic  tendencies  were  furthered  and  spread 
in  families,  as  well  as  in  schools,  by  the  Philanthropinism  of  Basedow  (born 
1723,  died  1790);  Salzmann  (born  1744,  died  1811);  and  Campe  (born 
1746,  died  1818).  On  Basedow’s  work,  Philalethie,  Altona,  1764,  see 
Heinrich ,  p.  467,  ss.  Among  the  people  the  interest  for  systematic  theology 
had  considerably  diminished.  A  calculating  system  of  expediency  deprived 
life  of  all  its  poetry,  and  reduced  religion  to  a  mere  code  of  morals,  useful 
for  our  civil  duties.  Among  the  pious  part  of  the  people,  C.  F.  Gillert 
(1715-69)  continued  to  enjoy  great  authority;  his  views  of  Christianity, 
though  didactic  and  prolix,  were  distinguished  by  depth  of  feeling.  Nor 
had  KlopstocBs  Messiah  (1748),  which  had  once  been  received  with  eager¬ 
ness,  fallen  into  oblivion.  On  the  other  hand,  the  works  of  Wieland  con¬ 
tributed  to  the  spread  of  a  refined  freethinking,  as  well  as  of  French  frivolity, 
among  the  German  people.  Baumgarten-Crusius ,  Compendium  i.  p.  445, 
note  k,  shows  with  great  acuteness  the  connection  existing  between  that  sen¬ 
timentality,  which  was  intended  to  serve  as  a  substitute  for  true  religious 
feelings,  and  deistic  tendencies.  (On  Lessing,  see  above,  note  4  ;  on  Herder, 
compare  §  281.) — Some  attempts  were  also  made  to  form  societies  on  the 
basis  of  deistic  principles.  Such  were  the  “Illuminati”  founded  by  Weis- 
haupt ,  in  the  year  1777  :  the  “Freunde  der  Aufklarung”  (friends  A  en¬ 
lightenment)  in  Berlin,  1783  ;  see  TholucFs  lilerarischer  Anzeiger,  1830, 


382 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


No.  8  ;  and  Bahrdt's  Gessellschaft  der  XXII.  (Bahrdt’s  Society  of  the 
XXII.),  comp.  TholucJc's  vermischte  Schriften,  ii.  p.  115. 

7  The  most  conspicuous  among  them  was  C.  F.  Bahrdt  (born  1741,  died 
1792)  ;  comp,  his  Autobiography,  Berlin,  1790,  ss.  In  his  work,  Versuch 
eines  biblischen  Systems  der  Dogmatik.  Gotha  und  Leipzig,  1769,  70,  Frankf. 
und  Leipz.,  1771,  2  voll.  (see  Heinrich ,  p.  469,  ss.),  he  appeared  to  side  with 
the  advocates  of  orthodoxy :  but  in  his  writings,  composed  in  a  later  period 
of  his  life,  such  as  his  Glaubensbekenntniss  (1770. — Confession  of  faith), 
his  Briefe  fiber  die  Bibel  im  Volkston  (1782. — Popular  letters  on  the  Bible), 
his  Plan  und  Zweck  Jesu  (1784. — The  plan  and  object  of  Christ),  and  some 
others,  he  endeavored  to  undermine  all  positive  religion. — Several  other 
theological  writers  of  the  present  age  contributed  to  the  spread  of  Deism, 
or,  at  least,  of  indifference  in  religious  matters,  and  of  a  superficial  rational¬ 
ism,  e.  g.  J.  A.  Eberhard  (formerly  pastor  in  Charlottenburg,  afterwards  a 
professor,  of  theology  in  Halle,  died  1809),  who  wrote  the  Neue  Apologie 
des  Socrates,  ii.  vol.,  Berlin,  1776,  78  ;  G.  S.  Steinbart  (professor  of  theology 
in  Francfort  on  the  Oder,  died  1809),  Eudamonistisches  System  der  reinen 
Philosophic,  oder  Gliickseligkeitslehre  des  Christenthums,  fur  die  Bedfirf- 
nisse  seiner  aufgeklarten  Landsleute  und  Anderer,  die  nacli  Weisheit  fragen, 
eingerichtet,  Ziill.,  1778,  80,  86,  comp.  Heinrich,  p.  488,  ss.)  ;  W.  A.  Teller 
(prebendary  in  Berlin,  died  1804),  who  in  his  Dictionary  (first  published  in 
Berlin,  1772),  tried  to  correct  traditional  notions,  partly  with  good  sense,  but  in 
part  in  a  superficial  vein. — Several  diluted  and  tame  translations  of  the  Bible 
also  helped  forward  this  alleged  illumination ;  these  had  a  worthy  forerunner 
in  the  somewhat  older  Wertheim  version  of  1735.  Sermons  on  nature,  and 
morality,  and  agriculture,  and  the  cow-pox,  showing  a  total  lack  of  under¬ 
standing  about  the  object  of  Christian  worship,  and  Christian  festivals, 
helped  on  the  matter ;  as  did  also  Dietrich’s  and  Teller’s  so-called  improve¬ 
ments  in  hymn-books,  which  only  made  them  worse.  And  all  this  was  to 
illustrate  the  utility  of  the  office  of  the  preacher ! 

§  276. 

EFFORTS  OF  APOLOGETICAL  WRITERS.  CHANGES  IN  THE  MODE  OF 
TREATING  THEOLOGY.  MODERN  COMPENDIUMS  OF  SYSTEMATIC 

THEOLOGY. 

# 

The  attacks  of  the  Deists  gave  rise  to  numerous  refutations  and 
Antideistica.1  But  it  soon  became  evident  that  the  advocates 
of  positive  Christianity  were  not  agreed  as  to  the  best  mode  of  oper¬ 
ation  ;  in  the  general  obscurity  it  was  found  increasingly  difficult  to 
distinguish  friends  from  foes.2  Many  of  the  best  and  ablest  men 
willingly  abandoned  what  they  considered  the  mere  outworks,  in 
order  to  save  the  citadel  itself ;  nor  was  it  without  some  reason 
that  they  expected  to  advance  the  cause  of  the  u  religion  of  Jesus, ” 
thus  fallen  into  disrepute  among  the  educated,  by  presenting  its 
truths  in  a  clearer  and  more  tasteful  form,  and  by  adapting  them 


•  §  276.  Apolegetical  Writers. 


383 


to  the  wants  of  the  age.8  It  was  generally  admitted  that  the  old 
state  of  things  could  not  continue  ;  from  the  commencement  of  the 
eighteenth  century  theologians  exerted  themselves  to  give  a  new  im¬ 
pulse  to  their  science.  The  critical  examination  of  the  Bible  was 
promoted  by  more  correct  information  concerning  the  East,  and 
more  profound  classical  studies  ;  the  history  of  the  Scripture-text 
was  cleared  up  by  the  critical  investigations  of  Mill ,  Wett stein,  Ben- 
gel,  and  others,4  and  the  history  of  the  Canon  made  the  subject  of 
new  researches.  In  this  respect  the  labors  of  Michaelis ,5  Ernesti ,l 
and  Semler ,7  may  be  said  to  introduce  a  new  period.  Chiefly  in 
consequence  of  the  labors  of  Mosheim ,  church  history  ceased  to  be 
merely  the  servant  of  party  purposes  ;  he  gave  the  example  of  a 
firm  adherence  to  orthodoxy,  united  with  impartiality  in  judging 
of  heretical  doctrines.8  Thus,  the  works  on  systematic  theology 
composed  by  J.  B.  Michaelis ,p  J.  B.  Heilmann ,10  G.  T.  Zaclia- 
r ice, 11  G.  F.  Seiler ,12  J.  Oh.  Doederlein ,13  S.  F.  N.  Morus ,14  and 
others,  bore  the  impression  of  such  progress,  while  their  authors 
still  endeavoured  to  preserve,  as  far  as  possible,  the  purity  of 
evangelical  doctrine.  As  regards  this  last  point,  the  principles  of 
W.  A.  Teller ,15  E.  J.  Banov,™  J.  F.  Gruner ,17  J.  G.  R.  Ecker - 
mann,18  and  C.  Pli.  Henke,™  were  less  rigid  :  in  their  writings  they 
manifested  a  growing  desire  to  adopt  neological  tendencies.  Among 
the  theologians  of  the  Reformed  Church,  Stosch,'20  continued  a  faith¬ 
ful  advocate  of  the  former  system  of  orthodoxy,  while  Mursinna 26 
gave  in  his  adhesion  with  some  caveats,  to  the  modern  illumina¬ 
tion. 

1  Among  the  followers  of  Wolf,  Stiehritz ,  professor  of  philosophy  in  Halle, 
in  opposition  to  the  deists,  and  in  defence  of  the  principles  of  his  master, 
wrote  his  :  “  Beweis  fur  die  Wirklichkeit  einer  Offenbarung  wider  die  Natu- 
ralisten,  nebst  einer  Widerlegung  derer,  welche  dem  Wolfischen  System 
eine  Beforderung  der  Naturalisterei  beimessen.”  Halle,  1746.  ( Thor - 
schmid ,  Freidenkerbibliothek,  ii.  p.  755  ss.,  Lechler ,  p.  449).  After  the 
example  of  Pfaff,  chancellor  in  the  university  of  Halle,  (who  published  Aka- 
demische  Reden  liber  den  Entwurf  der  theologiae  antideisticse,  1759)  special 
lectures  were  delivered  in  order  to  refute  the  deists,  (see  Lechler ,  u.  s.,  Tho~ 
luck ,  Yerraischte  Schriften,  ii.  p.  25).  On  the  apologetical  writings  of  this 
period,  see  Tlioluck ,  i.,  150  ss.  Among  the  English  apologists  we  may 
mention ;  Lardner  (The  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History,  London,  1741-62 
xii.),  Addison ,  Newton ,  Berkeley ,  etc.  [Joseph  Addison,  b.  1672,  d.  1719  : 
On  the  Evidences  of  the  Christian  Religion,  1730  ;  Complete  Works,  ed.  G. 
W.  Greene,  New  York,  6  vols.,  1854.  Thomas  Newton ,  Bishop  of  Bristol,, 
b.  1704,  d.  1782:  works,  6  vols.,  1787  ;  Dissertation  on  Prophecies,  2  vols., 
10th  ed.,  Lond.,  1804. — George  Berkeley,  b.  1684,  d.  175S,  Bishop  of  Cloyne  ; 
Principles  of  Human  Knowledge,  1710  ;  Three  Dialogues  between  Hylas  and 
Philonous,  1713;  Proposal  for  converting  Savage  Americans  to  Eb ris.ti&n i ty, 


384 


Fif^h  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


1725;  The  Analyst,  addressed  to  an  Infidel  Mathematician  [Dr.  Halley], 
1735;  Alciphron,  or  the  Minute  Philosopher,  1732  ;  Account  of  his  Life, 
and  Strictures  on^his  Works,  1776  ;  Whole  Works,  2,  4to.,  1784  ;  by  G. 
N.  Wright ,  2  vols.,  1843.  His  defence  of  Christianity  against  the  atheist 
was  on  the  basis  of  his  idealistic  philosophic  theory.  On  him  see,  further, 
North  Am.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1855;  Brownson’s  Quarterly,  i. ;  Christ.  Exam. 
(Bowen),  xxiv. ;  Brit.  Qu.  Rev.,  July,  1857  ;  Christian  Review,  April,  1861. 
Joseph  Butler ,  Bishop  of  Durham,  b.  1692,  d.  1752.  When  nineteen  years 
of  age  he  corresponded  with  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  on  the  Principles  of  his 
Demonstration  of  the  Being  of  God.  Fifteen  Sermons  preached  at  the  Rolls 
Chapel,  1726  ;  his  great  work,  The  Analogy  of  Religion,  Natural  and  Re¬ 
vealed,  to  the  Constitution  and  Course  of  Nature,  was  published  in  1736, 
and  has  ever  since  been  esteemed  the  chief  work  in  the  deistic  controversy, 
unanswerable  on  the  grounds  then  assumed  in  common.  His  works,  best  ed. 
by  Bishop  Halifax,  2  vols.,  1849,  reprinted  New  York.  On  the  numerous 
editions  of  the  Analogy  see,  Allibone ,  Diet,  of  Authors,  i.  314. — In  England 
and  America,  the  vulgar  infidelity  was  represented  by  Thos.  Paine ,  b.  1737, 
d.  1809  :  Common  Sense,  1791;  Rights  of  Man,  1792;  Age  of  Reason, 
1792-5.  Richard  Watson,  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  (b.  1737,  d.  1816),  An  Apol¬ 
ogy  for  the  Bible  in  a  Series  of  Letters  addressed  to  Thos.  Paine,  2d  ed., 
Lond.,  1796.  Chs.  Leslie,  (nonjuror,  d.  1722),  Short  and  Easy  Method  with 
Deists:  Works,  7,  8vo.,  Oxf.,  1832.  William  Paley,  b.  1743,  d.  1805: 
Natural  Theology  ;  View  of  the  Evidences  ;  Horse  Paulinse  ;  Moral  and  Polit¬ 
ical  Philosoph}7,  etc.  Complete  Works,  4,  8vo.,  Lond.,  1838,  and  often.  Philip 
Skelton ,  b.  1707,  d.  1787  ;  Complete  Works,  Lond.,  6  vols.,  1624  (vol.  4, 
Opliiomaclies,  or  Deism  Revealed,  in  Eight  Dialogues  ;  vol.  5,  Letter  to  the 
Author  of  the  Divine  Analogy,  and  the  Minute  Philosopher).  William 
Warburton,  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  b.  1698,  d.  1 7 79.  Works,  12  vols.,  Lond., 
1811;  The  Divine  Legation  of  Moses  (vol.  1  and  2,  5th  ed.,  1766;  3,  4 
and  5,  4th  ed.,  1765  ;  vol.  6,  supplement,  1768  (the  7th  and  8th  Books  have 
never  been  published);  the  tenth  ed.,  3  vols.,  1846.  On  the  Warburtonian 
controversy,  see  Quart.  Review,  vol.  2,  p.  401.  Julian,  a  Disc,  on  the  Earth¬ 
quake,  etc.,  Lond.,  1750  ;  Principles  of  Nat.  and  Rev.  Religion  (Werke,  vol. 
9).  Tracts  by  Warburton  and  a  Warburtonian  [Bp.  Hurd],  Lond.,  178'9. 
Letter  from  a  late  eminent  Prelate  [Warburton]  and  one  of  his  Friends 
[Hurd],  3d  ed.,  1809.  Richard  Hurd ,  Bishop  of  Worcester,  b.  1720,  d. 
1808  ;  works,  8  vols.,  8vo.,  Lond.,  1811.  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Pro¬ 
phecies — the  Warburtonian  Lectures  for  1772.  (In  the  same  series  are  pub¬ 
lished  works,  chiefly  on  the  Prophecies,  by  Samuel  Halifax,  1776;  Lewis 
Bagot ,  1780  ;  Robert  Hares ,  1805  ;  Ed.  Pearson ,  1807—11  ;  John  Davison , 
1825,  etc.)  Other  earlier  works  in  this  controversy,  were  Bp.  Conybeare' s 
Defence  of  Revealed  Religion,  1732  ;  Delaney's  Revelation  Examined,  3  vols., 
1735  ;  Ellis's  Knowledge  of  Divine  Things,  1743  ;  Smith’s  (Elisha),  Cure 
of  Deism,  2  vols.,  1736,  etc.]  Among  the  German  apologists  wefe,  Haller, 
(Briefe  tlber  die  wichtigsten  Wahrheiten  der  Offenbarung,  Bern,  1772)  ; 
Lilienthal  (gute  Sache  der  Offenbarung,  Konigsb.  1750-82) ;  Less,  [Authen¬ 
ticity  of  the  New  Test.,  from  the  German,  by  Robert  Kingdon ,  Lond.,  1804]  ; 
Hosselt ,  etc.  The  “  Wolfenbuttel  Fragments”  also  gave  rise  to  numerous 


§  276.  Apologetical  Writers. 


385 


controversial  writings  (comp,  the  Allgemeine  deutsche  Bibliothek,  voll.  30 
ano  40),  the  best  of  which  were  composed  by  Doderlein ,  Less,  Mlchaelis , 
Barthels  and  Sender . 

2  See  Skelton  [Philip,  see  previous  note]  offenbare  Deisterei,  1756,  ii. 
pref.,  quoted  by  Tholuck,  i.,  p.  21  :  “  Our  modern  apologists  too  frequently 
defend  Christianity  on  deistic  principles,  and  too  readily  represent  their  own 
articles  of  faith  in  a  new  dress ;  they  expect  that  such  a  course  of  proceed¬ 
ing  will  be  advantageous  to  their  cause.”  In  proof  of  this  the  example  of 
John  Taylor  might  be  adduced  [referring  to  Taylor  of  Norwich,  b.  1694, 
d.  1762,  author  of  the  work  on  Original  Sin,  1738,  etc].  Comp.  Ernesti, 
Neue  theologische  Bibliothek,  i.,  p.  115.  Tholuck,  p.  30. 

8  Thus  Jerusalem,  Spalding ,  Zollikoffer,  and  others,  whose  honest  inten¬ 
tions  none  can  reasonably  doubt.  See  Jerusalem,  Betrachtungen  liber  die 
vornehmsten  Wahrheiten  der  Religion,  1768,  ii.,  5th  edit.,  1773-92.  Second 
series,  2  vols.,  1793.  Spalding,  J.  J.  (died  1804),  Gedanken  liber  den 
Werth  der  Geftihle  im  Christenthum,  1761  (1784) ;  Ueber  die  Nutzbarkeit 
des  Predigtamtes,  1775;  Yertraute  Briefe,  die  Religion  betreffend,  1788. 
G.  J.  Zollikoffer  wrote  works  of  a  homiletic  and  devotional  character. 
A.  W.  Sack  belonged  to  the  same  class  of  writers.  The  theory  of  accom¬ 
modation  adopted  by  these  men  is  fairly  estimated  by  Steffens  :  Was  ich  er- 
lebte,  i.,  p.  258  ss. 

4  Compare  the  Introductions  to  the  New  Testament.  How  much  sacred 
criticism  was  brought  into  connection  with  neological  tendencies,  may  be 
seen  in  the  case  of  Wettstein  ;  see  Hagenbach,  in  Illgens  Zeitschrift,  1839, 
part  1.  But  the  necessity  of  a  critical  study  of  Scripture  was  no  less  felt  by 
the  advocates  of  the  opposite  principle,  e.  g.  Hengel,  who  strenuously  applied 
himself  to  it  in  the  service  of  the  Lord. 

6  John  David  Michaelis  was  born  1 7 1 6,  and  died  1791.  Comp.  Tholuck 
i.  p.  130.  Of  his  disciples,  Eichhorn  is  best  known  as  the  most  eminent  of 
the  rationalistic  theologians  of  the  present  period.  Though  Michaelis 
seemed  for  a  time  to  have  adopted  the  principles  of  unbiassed  criticism  and 
exegesis,  he  soon  after  began  to  adapt  his  views  to  the  spirit  of  the  age.  He 
aiso  endeavoured  to  explain  the  miracles  of  Christ  in  a  natural  manner. 
(Introduction  to  New  Test.,  transl.  from  the  4th  ed.,  by  Herbert  Marsh  [Bp. 
Peterborough],  4  vols.,  in  6,  Lond.,  1802.  Bp.  Marsh  was  attacked  in  the 
British  Critic,  first  series,  iii.  601-4,  iv.  46  sq.,  170  sq. ;  also  by  Dr.  Ran¬ 
dolph,  Remarks,  etc.,  to  which  he  replied  in  Letters.  Michaelis' s  Comment¬ 
aries  on  Laws  of  Moses,  transl.  by  Alex .  Smith,  4  vols.,  Lond.,  1814  :  his 
Introd.  Lectures  to  Sacred  Books  of  New  Test,  were  translated  as  early  as 
1780.] 

8  John  August  Ernesti  was  born  1707,  and  died  1781.  He  wrote:  In- 
stitutio  interprets  N.  Test.,  Lips.,  1761,  ed.  Ammon.,  1792, 1809,  8.  “  With 

the  name  of  this  theologian  is  connected  the  transition  to  more  liberal  princi¬ 
ples  in  the  interpretation  of  Holy  Writ Klausen,  Hermeneutik,  p.  291. 
On  the  merits  of  his  work  (which  were  not  very  great)  see  Klausen,  1.  c.,  p. 
294,  [Principles  of  Bibl.  Interpretation,  transl.  by  O.  A.  Terrot,  Bp.  of  Scot¬ 
tish  Episc.  Chh.,  new  ed.,  1845  ;  Elements  of  Interp.,  by  Moses  Stuart , 
Andov.,  3d.  ed.,  1827.] 


386 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


7  John  Solomon  Semler  was  born  1725,  and  died  1791,  as  professor  of 
theology  in  the  university  of  Halle.  Compare  his  Autobiography  (which 
takes  in  also  the  history  of  his  times),  Halle,  1781,  82,  ii.  voll.  It  was  espe¬ 
cially  Semler  who,  “  without  forming  a  school  of  his  own ,  may  be  said  to  have 
carried  the  torch  which  kindled  the  conflagration ,  the  effects  of  which  have  not 
yet  disappeared  F  Tholuck ,  ii.,  p.  39.  Of  his  numerous  (1 7l)  writings  we 
mention  only  those  which  have  reference  to  our  present  subject:  Yon  freier 
TJntersuchung  des  Kanons,  Halle,  1771-75.  Institutio  ad  Doctrinam  Chris^ 
tianam  liberaliter  discendam,  Hall.,  1774.  Versuch  einer  freien  theologi- 
schen  Lehrart,  Hall.,  1777  ss.  The  principal  points  of  Semler’ s  theology  are 
the  distinction  which  he  made  between  theology  and  religion  (ethics),  and 
his  endeavours  to  represent  the  sacred  Scriptures  as  having  a  merely  local 
and  temporary  character.  An  account  of  his  life  and  writings  is  given  by 
Tholuck ,  ii.,  p.  39-83.  The  history  of  doctrines  owes  its  origin  to  Semler’s 
introduction  to  Baumgarten’s  Compendium  of  systematic  theology  (vol.  i., 

§  160 

8  See  F.  Lucke ,  Narratio  de  Joanne  Laurentio  Moshemio,  Gott.,  1837,  4. 
Soon  after  his  death  ecclesiastical  history  was,  like  exegesis,  made  subser¬ 
vient  to  the  spirit  of  the  times  ( Spittler  and  Henke  ;  the  pragmatic  method 
adopted  by  Planck .)  The  history  of  doctrines  was  made  use  of  to  show  the 
changeableness  of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity. 

9  Comp  Theol.  Dogm.,  Gott.,  1760,  ed.  2,  1784. 

10  Heilmann  was  born  1729,  and  died  1764,  as  professor  in  Gottingen.  He 
wrote  :  Comp.  Theol.  Dogm.,  Gott.,  1761,  ed.  3,  80. 

11  Zachariae ,  was  born,  1729,  and  died  1777,  as  professor  of  theology  in 
the  university  of  Kiel.  He  wrote  :  Biblische  Theologie,  oder  TJntersuchung 
des  biblischen  Grundes  der  vornehmsten  theologischen  Lehren,  Gott.  u.  Kiel, 
1771-75.  The  last  part  was  edited  by  Vollborth ,  1786.  Zachariae  under¬ 
stood  by  biblical  theology  :  “  not  that  theology ,  the  substance  of  which  is  taken 
from  Scripture,  for  in  this  sense  every  theological  system  must  be  biblical , 
but  more  generally  a  precise  definition  of  all  the  doctrines  treated  of  in  sys¬ 
tematic  theology ,  the  correct  understanding  of  these  doctrines ,  in  accordance 
with  Scriptural  notions ,  and  the  best  proofs Heinrich,  p.  515,  ss.  This 
was,  accordingly,  the  first  attempt  to  treat  Biblical  Theology,  as  a  separate 
branch  of  theological  science,  independently  of  systematic  theology.  His 
example  was  followed  by  W.  F.  Hufnagel,  who  wrote  Handbuch  der  biblis¬ 
chen  Theologie,  Erlangen,  1785-91,  Ammon,  De  Wette,  Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius  and  others. 

12  Seiler  was  born  1733,  and  died  1807,  as  professor  of  theology  in  the 
university  of  Erlangen.  He  wrote  :  Theol.  Dogm.  Polem.  c.  comp,  dogmat. 
Erl.,  1774,  ed.  3,  1789. 

13  Doderlein  was  born  1714,  taught  at  Altorf  and  Jena,  and  died  1789,  as 
a  professor  in  Btitzow.  He  wrote  Institutio  Theologi  Christiani  in  capitibus 
religionis  theoreticis  nostris  temporibus  accommodata,  ii.,  Alt.  1780,  ’82,  ’84, 
’87.  In  the  preface  to  this  work  he  expressed  himself  as  follows  (quoted  by 
Heinrich,  p.  493)  :  “  Theologians  must  not  now  invent  new  doctrines,  and 
go  beyond  Scripture.;  neither  should  they  rest  satisfied  with  the  labors  of 
their  predecessors,  but  define  more  precisely  what  they  have  said,  make  usa 


§  276.  Apologetical  Writers. 


887 


of  modern  explanations  and  new  modes  of  representing  certain  doctrines,  and 
have  a  special  regard  to  the  wants  of  the  age.  Hence  they  must  examine  tliose 
doctrines  which  are  now  most  of  all  disputed,  and  define  them  the  more 
carefully  and  deliberately.  As  regards  their  mode  of  argumentation,  they 
must  also  adapt  themselves  to  the  circumstances  of  the  times ,  and  avoid 
approving  of  and  retaining  all  arguments  brought  forward  by  earlier  writers, 
which  are  in  themselves  doubtful  and  uncertain  ;  they  must  rather  avail 
themselves  of  the  great  advances  recently  made  in  biblical  exegesis,  so  as  to 
be  more  prudent  in  the  selection  of  the  arguments  by  which  to  prove  par¬ 
ticular  doctrines ;  they  must  not  consider  their  number,  but  their  internal 
merit,  and  only  choose  such  as  are  clear  and  conclusive,”  etc. 

14  Morus  was  born  1736,  and  died  1792,  as  professor  of  theology  in  the 
university  of  Leipsic.  He  wrote  :  Epitome  Theologiae  Christianae,  Lips., 
1789,  Heinrich ,  p.  498  ss. 

15  Teller  was  born  1734,  and  died  1804  (compare  §  275,  note  7.)  He 
wrote  Lehrbuch  des  christlichen  Glaubens,  1763  ;  Religion  der  Volkommnern, 
1792. 

19  E.  Jacob  Danov  was  born  1741,  and  died  1782,  as  professor  of  theology 
in  the  university  of  Jena.  He  wrote  :  Theologize  dogmaticas  Institut.,  Lib.  ii., 
Jen.,  1772,  6.  The  Ketzeralmanach  of  1781  (Bahrdt’s)  says  of  him  :  “  He 
wears  an  outside  coat  like  a  regular  divine,  but  under  it  is  the  uniform  of  a 
free  partisan.” 

17  John  Frederic  Gruner  was  born  1723,  and  died  1778,  as  professor  of 

theology  in  the  university  of  Halle.  Lie  wrote  :  Institutionum  Theologiae 
dogmaticae  lib.  iii.,  Halle,  1777,  8.  “  He  was  a  man  of  much  originality , 

and  historical  knowledge.  Ilis principal  endeavour  was  to  prove ,  like  S 'em- 
ler ,  the  later  origin  of  the  orthodox  doctrines ,  and  the  many  changes  through 
which  they  have  gone ,  with  this  difference ,  that  Gruner ,  in  support  of  his 
theory ,  had  recourse  to  the  Platonizantes ,  Semler  to  the  Judaizantes .” 
Tlioluck ,  1.  c.,  p.  106.  Comp.  Heinrich ,  p.  482.  The  main  idea  pervading 
the  whole  book  is,  that  the  principal  doctrines  of  Christianity  had  been  cor¬ 
rupted  as  early  as  the  close  of  the  first  century,  by  the  influence  of  the  Pla¬ 
tonic  and  Oriental  philosophy  of  the  Alexandrian  school. 

18  J.  Caspar  Rudolph  Eckermann  was  born  1754,  and  died  1836,  as  pro¬ 
fessor  of  theology  in  the  university  of  Kiel.  Among  his  works  were  :  Com¬ 
pendium  Theologiae  Christianae  theoret.  bibl.  histor.,  1791;  Handbuch  fur 
das  systematische  Studium  der  christlichen  Glaubenslehre,  1801,  3,  iv. 
voll. 

19  Conrad  Philip  Henke  was  born  1752,  and  died  1809,  as  professor  of 
theology  in  the  university  of  Helmstadt,  and  abbot  of  Michaelstein.  He 
wrote:  Lineamenta  Institutt.  Fidei  Christ,  histor.  critic.,  Helmst.,  1793,  ed. 
2,  95.  In  the  preface  to  this  work  he  enumerates  three  kinds  of  superstition 
which  he  must  combat :  1.  Christolatry ;  2.  Bibliolatry ;  3.  Onomatolatry ; 
at  the  same  time  he  speaks  of  Morus  and  Doederlein  in  terms  expressive  of 
high  esteem. 

20  Eberhard  Henry  Daniel  Stosch  was  born  1716,  and  died  1781,  as  professor 
of  theology  in  the  university  of  Frankfort  on  Oder.  He  wrote :  Introductio  in 


388  Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 

Theologiam  dogmaticam.,  Franc,  ad  Viadr.  1788;  Institut.  Theologiae  Dog- 

maticse,  ibid.,  1779,  8.  Comp.  Heinrich ,  p.  551. 

21  Samuel  Mursinna  was  born  1717,  and  died  1795,  as  professor  of  theol¬ 
ogy  in  the  university  of  Halle.  He  wrote :  Compendium  Theologise  Dog¬ 
matics,  Halle,  1777,  8.  Comp.  Heinrich ,  p.  549  :  “  He  made  diligent  use 
of  the  labors  of  modern  theologians,  as  far  as  they  have  respect  to  a  more 
correct  definition  of  doctrines  ;  nor  did  he  overlook  the  opinions  of  earlier 
divines,  but  made  mention  of  them,  as  well  as  stated  the  arguments  commonly 
adduced  in  their  support ;  nevertheless  he  did  not  always  pronounce  his  own 
judgment  concerning  their  merit,  but  left  it  to  his  readers  to  choose  between 
the  old  and  the  new?  Barhdt,  in  his  Ketzeralmanach,  calls  him  the  “  staff- 
quartermaster  of  the  reformed  partisan-corps.” 

Compendiums  of  systematic  theology,  written  in  a  popular  style,  were  published  by 
Less  (1779,  89),  and  Griesbach  (1786,  89),  who  also  endeavored  to  combine  the  old  with 
the  new. 

§  277. 

«■* 

REACTION,  edict  of  religion,  orthodox  pietism. 

To  oppose  a  barrier  to  the  further  spread  of  this  fast-growing 
scepticism,  was  a  bold  enterprise,  as  was  clearly  proved  by  the  fail¬ 
ure  of  the  two  measures  resorted  to  by  the  King  of  Prussia — viz., 
the  publication  of  an  Edict  of  Religion  in  the  year  1788,  and  the 
institution  of  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal.1  It  was  necessary  that  the 
opposing  elements  should  develop  their  results  through  an  internal 
process.  The  pietistic  tendency  of  the  school  of  Halle  (originally 
founded  by  Spener,  Francke,  and  others),  had  indeed  in  its  second 
stadium  lost  much  of  its  earlier  vigor,  and  degenerated  into  a  dead 
formalism.2  But  in  opposition  to  the  demonstrative  as  well  as 
negative  tendency  of  Rationalism,  two  theologians  of  Wirtemberg, 
J.  A.  Bengelf  and  F.  Ch.  Oetingerf  gave  a  new  direction  to  theology, 
by  introducing  into  it  not  only  positive,  but  also  pietistic  and  mys¬ 
tical  elements  ;  Ch.  A.  Crusiusf  followed  their  example.  Societies 
for  practical  as  well  as  philosophical  purposes  were  founded,6  in 
order  to  keep  alive  positive  religion  among  the  people.  Thus,  in 
the  minds  of  many,  the  faith  of  their  forefathers  was  preserved  not 
only  as  a  dead  legacy,  but  assumed  here  and  there,  for  the  most 
part  in  the  form  of  Pietism,  depth  and  independence,  in  contrast 
with  the  superficial  tendencies  of  the  age.7  [“  Pietism  let  dogmas 
stand  in  their  external  form,  believing  that  it  could  have  religion 
and  Christianity,  if  not  without  dogmas,  yet  without  a  system  of 
dogmas  in  this  particular  form.  By  emphasizing  the  internal  expe¬ 
rience  of  religion,  its  subjective  worth  ....  pietism  itself  made  the 
transition  to  another  standpoint,  in  which  the  individual  (subject), 
not  only  lays  claims  to  his  own  subjective  rights,  but  is  also  under 


§  277.  Orthodox  Pietism.  389 

the  power  of  a  principle  which  must  carry  him  still  further  onward 
Baur ,  p.  345.] 

1  This  edict  was  issued  (July  9th)  by  Frederic  William  II.,  at  the  instiga' 
tion  of  Wollner ,  one  of  the  king’s  counsellors ;  see  Acten,  Urkunden  und 
Nachrichten  zur  neuesten  Kirchengeschiclite,  vol.  i.  p.  461,  ss.  By  another 
edict  theological  works  were  subjected  to  the  censorship  of  persons  appointed 
by  the  king.  In  addition,  a  committee  (consisting  of  Hermes ,  Hillmer ,  and 
Woltersdorf ),  were  appointed  to  visit  and  examine  the  clergy.  The  pro¬ 
ceedings  of  this  committee,  the  trial  of  pastor  Schulz,  in  Gielsdorf  (1791), 
and  the  titles  of  all  the  works  published  for  and  against  the  edict,  are  given 
in  HenJce ,  Beurtheilung  aller  Schriften,  welche  durch  das  preussische  Re- 
ligions-Edict  veranlasst  sind,  Kiel,  1793.  Respecting  the  ill  success  of  those 
measures  Hermes  (in  Halle)  expressed  himself  as  follows :  “  We  are  looked 
upon  as  persons  of  consequence,  nevertheless  we  have  not  yet  succeeded  in  re¬ 
moving  one  single  neological  village  pastor  from  office  ;  so  all  works  against 
us.”  See  Tlioluck ,  ii.  p.  126,  ss. 

3  See  Sender’s  Biography,  i.  p.  48,  ss. — “  Many  pious  and  otherwise  re¬ 
spectable  men  who  belonged  to  the  school  of  Halle  in  the  second  generation, 
displayed  a  weak-minded  and  painful  timidity .”  Tholuck,  ii.  p.  8.  The 
conduct  of  the  Halle  pietists  in  the  Wolfian  controversy  also  brought  the 
whole  tendency  into  disrepute. 

3  Bengel  was  born  1687,  was  at  first  tutor  in  a  monastery,  then  pastor, 
and  died  1752  as  a  prelate  and  doctor  of  theology  in  Stuttgart.  See  J.  Ch. 
F.  Burk,  Dr.  J.  A.  Bengel’s  Leben  und  "Wirken,  Stuttgart,  1832. — His 
labors  for  the  promotion  of  the  critical  knowledge  of  the  Bible  are  deserv¬ 
ing  of  special  notice.  He  is  well  known  as  an  advocate  of  Millennarianism. 
Concerning  his  doctrinal  opinions,  which  were  founded  on  his  exegetical 
studies,  see  Burk ,  p.  353,  ss.  Comp,  the  article  by  Hartmann,  in  Herzog’s 
Realencyclopadie.  [Burk's  Life  of  Bengel,  transl.  by  B.  F.  Walker,  Bond., 
1837.  His  Gnomon  of  New  Test.,  transl.  by  A.  R.  Fausset,  and  others, 
8  vols.,  Edinb.,  4th  ed.,  1860  ;  by  C.  T.  Lewis  and  M.  R.  Vincent,  vol.  i. 
Phil.,  1860.  In  his  work  on  the  Apocalypse,  his  Ordo  Temporum  (1741), 
and  his  Age  of  the  World,  1746,  he  assigned  a.  d.  1837  as  the  probable 
date  of  Christ’s  second  coming.] 

4  Oetinger  was  born  1702,  and  died  1782,  as  prelate  of  the  monastery 
Murrhard.  He  wrote  :  Theologia  ex  Idea  Vitae  deducta,  in  6  locos  redacta, 
quorum  quilibet  1.  secundum  sensum  communem,  2.  sec.  mysteria  scripturae, 
3.  sec.  formulas  theticas  nova  et  experimentali  methodo  pertractatur. 
Francof.  et  Lips.,  1765,  8.  In  this  work  he  endeavored  to  develop  the  entire 
system  of  faith  in  a  dynamic  and  genetic  method  from  the  idea  of  life.  In 
opposition  to  the  mathematical  method  of  Wolf  he  observes  in  the  preface, 
p.  3  :  Ordo  geometricus  incipit  ab  una  aliqua  idea  abstracta ;  ordo  generativus, 
ut  in  seminibus  patet,  incipit  a  toto  idque  per  minima  explicat  sequabiliter, 
quod  nos  nonnisi  simulacris  imperfectis  imitari  possumus.  He  therefore 
advises  theologians  to  ascertain  first  of  all  the  sensus  communis,  cujus  pre¬ 
ceptor  est  ipse  Deus  (Ps.  xciv.  10)  ;  then  to  examine  the  doctrine  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  to  rest  on  it  the  doctrine  of  the  church.  He  finds  fault  with  the 


390 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


philosophy  of  Wolf  principally  because  it  has  converted  the  terms,’  life, 
kingdom,  spirit,  etc.,  to  which  Scripture  attaches  a  definite  meaning,  into 
mere  abstract  ideas,  and  thus  originated  a  system  of  false  idealism  which  re¬ 
solves  everything  into  mere  symbolical  phraseology.  But  at  the  same  time 
he  introduces  much  that  is  cabalistic,  and  refers  to  his  work :  Oeffentliches 
Denkmahl  der  Lehrtafel  der  Princessin  Antonia,  etc.,  Tub.,  1763,  which  is 
of  an  entirely  cabalistic  character.  There  is  in  his  writings  a  mixture  of  the 
mystical  and  speculative  tendency  of  J.  Bohme  with  the  pietistic  and  practi¬ 
cal  of  Spener.  As  regards  the  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  Swedenborg, 
compare  the  following  §.  Comp,  the  translation  of  his  Theologia  ex  Idea 
Vitae  into  German  (Theologie  aus  der  Idee  des  Lebens,  etc.),  by  Jul.  Ham- 
berger ,  Stuttg.,  1852  ;  and  *C.  A.  Auberlen ,  Die  Theosophie  Fr.  Chr.  Oetin- 
ger’s  nach  ihren  Grundlagen,  ein  Beitrag  zur  Dogmengesch.  und  zur  Gesch. 
der  Philos.,  mit  Vorwort  von  Richard  Rothe ,  Tubing.,  1848  [1859.  Oetin- 
ger’s  Leben  und  Briefe,  von  K '.  C.  E.  Ehmann ,  1859,  who  also  published 
the  first  complete  edition  of  O.’s  Sermons,  1852.  His  Biblisches  Worterbuch 
was  reviewed  by  Auberlen  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1850.  Oetinger’s 
Sammtliche  Schriften,  ed.  Ehmann,  3  Bde.  to  I860.] 

5  Crusius  was  a  disciple  of  Bengel,  and  opposed  to  the  philosophy  of 
Wolf;  he  was  born  1715,  and  died  1775  as  professor  of  theology  and 
philosophy  in  the  university  of  Leipsic.  He  wrote  :  Opuscula  philosophico- 
theologica,  Lips.,  1750.  Die  wahre  Gestalt  der  Religion,  1754.  Hypom- 
nemoneumata  ad  Theol.  propheticam,  Lips.,  1764-71,  ii.  8.  Vorstellung 
von  dem  eigentlichen  schriftmafsigen  Plan  des  Reichs  Gottes,  Lpz.,  1768,  8. 
Moral-th eol.,  Lpz.,  1772,  73.  Comp.  Schrockh ,  vi.  p.  106,  ss.,  vii.  p.  647, 
viii.  p.  41,  and  p.  108.  Ruble ,  vol.  v.  p.  589,  ss.  Reinhard ,  Gestandnisse, 
p.  68,  ss.  Wurtemann ,  Einleitung  in  das  Lehrbande  des  Herrn  Dr.  Crusius, 
Wbg.,  1757.  Herzog's  Realencyclopadie,  iii.  192,  sq. 

6  Such  societies  were  formed  in  Stockholm  (1771),  and  the  Hague  (1785.) 
The  Deutsche  Christenthumsgesellschaft,  ohne  RucJcsicht  auf  Confession- 
sunterschied  ( i .  e.  irrespective  of  denominational  differences)  was  founded 
(1779)  by  J.  A.  Urlsperger,  a  Lutheran  theologian.  As  its  chief  seats  are 
named  Basle,  London,  and  Berlin ;  see  J.  A.  Urlsperger ,  Beschaffenheit  und 
Zweck  einer  zu  errichtenden  deutschen  Gesellschaft  thatiger  Beforderer  reiner 
Lehre  und  wahrer  Gottseligkeit,  Basle,  1781. 

7  See  Rretschneider ,  die  Grundlage  des  evangelischen  Pietismus,  Lpz., 
1833.  Binder ,  der  Pietismus  und  die  moderne  Bildung,  Stuttg.,  1839. 
Mdr/clin ,  Darstellung  und  Kritik  des  modernen  Pietismus,  Stuttg.,  1839. 
Comp.  Dorner ,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1840,  part  i. 


§  278. 

ZINZENDORF  AND  THE  UNITED  BRETHERN.  'WESLEY  AND  THE  METH¬ 
ODISTS.  SWEDENBORG. 

In  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century  a  new  sect  took  its  rise, 
which  exerted  a  considerable  influence  upon  the  mind  of  the  age, 


§  278.  ZlNZENDOltF. 


391 


and  the  development  of  Christian  life  in  general.  It  was  founded  in 
Herrnhut  by  Count  Zinzendorf \l  and  is  known  with  its  branches  by 
the  name  of  the  Society  of  the  United  Brethren .2  Though  owing  its 
origin  for  the  most  part  to  Pietism,3  it  differed  from  it  on  several 
points,  its  object  being,  not  so  much  a  general  reform  of  the  church 
and  its  doctrines,  as  the  organization  of  a  particular  Christian  com¬ 
munity.  Count  Zinzendorf  for  himself  adopted  the  Confessio  Au- 
gustana  as  his  creed,  but  without  excluding  the  members  of  other 
Christian  denominations.4  Nevertheless,  by  attaching  great  import¬ 
ance  to  certain  doctrines,  and  by  his  mode  of  treating  them,  he 
imparted  a  novel  and  somewhat  sentimental  aspect  to  the  old  Lu¬ 
theran  theology.  The  theology  of  Herrnhut  is  characterized  by  a 
spirit  of  ardent  love  to  the  person  of  the  Saviour,  and  a  hearty  reli¬ 
ance  upon  his  merits,  but  it  is  at  the  same  time  deeply  tinged  with 
a  sensuous  tendency.5  The  theologians  of  his  school,  conscious  of  a 
higher  vocation,  endured  with  calmness  the  scorn  of  the  world,  and 
the  censures  passed  upon  them  by  learned  and  pious  divines.6  John 
Wesley ,  the  founder  of  Methodism ,  in  his  strict  preaching  of  repent¬ 
ance  was  animated  by  a  practical  rather  than  a  strict  theological 
spirit,  and  exerted  in  his  time  a  far  greater  influence  upon  England 
than  upon  Germany.7  More  sympathy  was  there  felt  (in  addition 
to  the  pietist  and  mystic  tendencies)  with  the  theosophic  doctrines 
of  Immanuel  Swedenborg ,  the  founder  of  the  Church  of  the  New 
J erusalem*  These  consisted  chiefly  in  a  peculiar  mixture  of  ration¬ 
alistic  and  mystical  ideas,  and  made  progress  in  wide  circles, 

1  Zinzendorf  was  horn  1700,  and  died  1760.  See  the  accounts  of  his 

life  given  by  Spangenberg ,  Schrautenbach ,  Varnhagen  von  Ense  (Biograph- 
ische  Denkmale,  vol.  v.),  and  Tholuck ,  vermischte  Schriften,  i.  p.  433.  G. 
Muller ,  Selbstbekenntnisse  merkwtirdiger  Manner,  vol.  iii.  Herder's  Adrastea 
(Werke  zur  Philosophic,  x.  p.  61).  Knapp  in  the  Preface  to  his  ed.  of  Z.’s 
hymns  [1845.]  [ Schrautenbach ,  Graf,  von  Zinz.  herausg.  von  F.  W.  Kol - 

bing,  1851.  0.  Glaubrecht ,  Z.  in  der  Wetterau,  1852-3.  J.  F.  Schroder , 

Z.  und  Herrnhut,  Nordhausen,  1857.  L.  Bovet ,  Le  Comte  de  Zinzendorf, 

2  Tom.  Par.  1857.] 

2  The  first  congregation  was  founded  a.  d.  1722.  Concerning  the  history 

of  the  society  of  the  United  Brethren,  see  Cranz ,  alte  und  neue  Brtiderhis- 
torie,  Barby,  1772,  continued  by  Hegner ,  1794 — 1804.  Schaaf  die  evan- 
gelischen  Brtidergemeinden  Leipz.,  1825.  See  the  literature  in  Niedner’s 
Kirchengesch.  p.  763.  \John  Holmes ,  Hist,  of  Unit.  Brethren,  2,  Lond., 
1825.  B.  Latrobe ,  Hist.  Account  of  the  Moravians,  transl.  from  the  Ger¬ 
man,  1775  ;  transl.  by  Crantz,  1780.  E.  W.  Croger ,  Gesch.  d.  erneuerten 

Briidergemeinde,  iii.  Bde.,  1852-4.  A.  Bost,  Histoire  ancienne  et  modern© 
de  Peglise  des  Freres  de  Boheme  et  Moravie,  2,  Paris,  1844.  Benham,  Menu 

of  Jas.  Hutton ,  (founder  of  English  branch),  8vo.,  Bond.,  1857.-  Against 

them,  see  J.  A.  Bengel ,  Abriss  der  Briidergemeinde,  1751,  reprinted,  1.859* 


392 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


— James  Henry ,  Sketches  of  Moravian  Life  and  Character,  Phil.,  1855. 
E.  de  Schweinetz ,  Moravian  Manual,  Phil.,  1859. — Articles  in  Meth.  Quar¬ 
terly  (N.  Y.),  1859;  Christ.  Examiner  (Bost.),  1859;  Qu.  Church  Pveview, 
I860.] 

3  Pietism  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  had  either  degenerated 
into  a  dead  formalism,  or  it  was  in  part  corrupted  by  all  sorts  of  fanatical 
tendencies  which  attached  themselves  to  it.  It  belongs  to  the  History  of  the 
Church,  rather  than  the  History  of  Doctrines  to  give  an  estimate  of  these. 
See  F.  W.  Krug ,  Kritische  Geschichte  der  protest.  Schwarmerei,  Secterei, 
und  der  gesammten  un-und  widerkirchlichen  Neuerungen  im  Grossherzog- 
thum  Berg,  Elberfeld,  1851.  W.  Barthold ,  Die  Erweckten  im  protest. 
Deutschland  wahrend  des  Ausgangs  des  I7n.  und  der  ersten  Halfte  des 
18n.  Jahrhunderte  (in  Raumeds  Taschenbuch,  1852).  Gobel ,  Geschichte 
des  christl.  Lebens,  etc.,  3  Bde.,  1860. 

4  This  (relative)  indifference  as  regards  denominational  differences  gave 
offence  to  many.  Zinzendorf  himself  adopted  the  Confessio  Augustana ;  his 
church  was  also  recognised  (1748)  by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  Saxony  as 
one  whose  creed  was  allied  to  that  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  But  some  Cal- 
vinistic  congregations,  in  the  Siaarropa  (e.  g.  that  of  Basle)  did  not  hesitate  to 
join  the  Society  of  the  United  Brethren. 

5  Terms  such  as  Bluttheologie  (i.  e.  the  theology  of  Christ’s  Blood), 
W unden- Lit anei  (i.  e.  the  litany  of  Christ’s  wounds),  Wunden-Homilien 
(t.  e.  the  homilies  on  Christ’s  wounds),  etc.,  were  introduced  by  Zinzendorf 
and  his  followers.  In  their  sacred  hymns  reference  was  frequently  made  to 
Christ’s  blood,  wounds,  his  pierced  side,  etc.  ;  compare  the  work  entitled  : 
Die  altlutherische  Bluttheologie  in  einem  Auszuge  aus  des  sel.  Dr.  Ahasveri 
Fritzschens  sogenannten  Himmelslust  und  Weltunlust,  with  the  motto: 
Pasce  me  vulneribus,  mens  dulcescet.  Leipzig  und  Gorlitz,  1750  ;  from  which 
it  is  evident,  that  similar  phraseology  had  been  employed  by  others  previous 
to  the  time  of  Zinzendorf.  (Ahasv.  Fritzsche  died  a.  d.,  1701.) — More 
moderate  expressions  were  used  by  Bishop  A.  G.  Spangenberg  (born  1704, 
died  1792) ;  see  his  Idea  Fidei  Fratrum,  oder  kurzer  Begriff  der  christlichen 
Lehre,  Barby,  1779-83.  [An  Exposition  of  Christian  Doctrine,  etc.,  written 
by  Spangenberg,  with  Preface  by  Benj.  La  Trobe ,  Lond.,  1784.]  With  the 
exception  of  that  part  of  his  work  in  which  he  treats  of  their  ecclesiastical 
constitution,  there  is  nothing  in  it  which  had  not  been  propounded  by  other 
evangelical  theologians. 

6  Among  these  we  may  mention  Carpzov,  in  Dresden,  Siegmund  Jacob 
Baumgarten ,  in  Halle,  John  Philip  Fresenius,  in  Frankfort  on  the  Main 
(1747-49),  J.  A.  Bengel  (1751),  Steinmetz ,  abbot  in  the  monastery  of  Ber¬ 
gen,  J.  G.  Walch ,  and  others. 

T  John  Wesley  was  born  1703,  and  died  1791.  Comp.  Southey,  the  life 
of  John  W.,  and  the  rise  and  progress  of  Methodism,  ed.  2,  Lond.,  1820,  ii. ; 
translated  into  German,  by  F.  A.  Krummacher ,  Hamb.,  1828.  H.  Moore, 
the  life  of  J.  W.,  Lond.,  1824,  ii.  vol.  Watson ,  the  life  of  John  Wesley; 
translated  into  German,  with  a  preface  by  Bonnet.  Frankf.,  1839.  Bruch - 
hardt ,  vollstandige  Geschichte  der  Methodisten  in  England,  Nilrnb.,  1795, 
2  voll.  Baum,  Der  Methodismus,  Ziir.,  1838.  Jakoby  (a  preacher  of 


§  278.  ZlNZENDORF. 


393 


Method.  Episc.  church),  Handbuch  des  Methodismus,  Bremen,  1853,  2te., 
Aufh,  1855.  [Works  of  Wesley,  Bristol,  1771,  sq .,  and  New  York  (Book 
Concern).  T.  Jackson ,  Hist,  of  Method.,  Bond.,  1838.  Isaac  Taylor , 
Wesley  and  Meth.,  Lond.  (N.  Y.),  1851.  J.  Whitehead ,  Lives  of  J.  and  C. 
Wesley,  Lond.,  2  vols.,  1793.  J.  Hampson ,  Mem.  of  Wesley,  and  Hist,  of 
Meth.  3  vols.,  Lond.,  1791.  Southey's  Life  of  Wesley,  ed.  by  Rev.  C.  0. 
Southey ,  Am.  ed.  by  Rev.  D.  Curry,  2  vols.,  1847  ;  Life  by  Richard  Watson  ; 
by  W.  Nast  (Leben  und  Wirken  der  J.  W.),  Cincin.,  1852.  Jackson’s  Cen¬ 
tenary  of  Methodism.  Larrabee ,  Wesley  and  his  Coadjutors.  Bangs'  Hist, 
of  Meth.,  4  vols.  Geo.  Smith ,  Hist,  of  Wesleyan  Methodism,  1857.  Jas. 
Porter ,  Companion  of  Methodism,  15th  thousand,  1858.  *  Abel  Stevens , 

Hist,  of  Religious  Movement  of  Eighteenth  Century,  called  Methodism ;  vols. 
1  and  2,  New  York,  1858-9. — Articles  in  British  Quarterly,  1852,  1853  ; 
North  British,  1852  ;  Kitto’s  Journal,  3  ;  Christ.  Remembrancer,  July,  1854  ; 
Meth.  Quarterly  Review  in  reply  to  Isaac  Taylor’s  work  (by  Perry),  1855, 
and  on  Wesley,  April,  1858,  ’59,  ’60. — The  theological  system  of  Wesley- 
anism  is  represented  in  the  works  of  John  Fletcher  and  Richard  Watson. 
John  Fletcher  (Flechiere)  born  at  Nym,  Switzerland,  1729,  vicar  of  Madely, 
died  1785.  Works,  8  vols.,  1803  :  (Bible  Arminianism  and  Bible  Calvinism  ; 
Checks  to  Antinomianism ;  Answer  to  Toplady,  etc.)  Richard  Watson , 
Theological  Institutes,  2d  ed.,  3  vols.,  Lond.,  1824  ;  frequently  reprinted  in 
the  United  States.  Comp,  also  Wilbur  Fisk  (Prest.  of  Wesleyan  Unio.) 
Calvinistic  Controversy,  new  ed.  New  York,  1853.  Meth.  Qu.  Rev.,  1859, 
I860.]  His  fellow  laborer  was  J.  G.  Whitejield  (died  1770).  [Works  of 
Whitefield ,  6  vols.,  Lond.,  1771  ;  comp.  Lit.  and  Theol.  Review,  6;  Christ. 
Review,  3  ;  New  Englander,  3  ;  North  American  for  1848;  Tracy's  Great 
Awakening,  1845;  Abel  Stevens,  ubi  supra.]  Afterwards  they  separated  on 
account  of  their  different  views  concerning  grace;  Wesley  adopted  the 
Arminian,  Whitefield  retained  the  strict  Calvinistic  principles.  Nor  did 
they  in  all  points  agree  with  the  Pietists  and  the  United  Brethren.  These 
differences  may  be  said  to  be,  that  the  United  Brethren,  by  a  onesided 
presentation  of  the  reconciliation  already  achieved,  and  of  the  experience  of 
grace  already  attained,  worked  in  a  more  quiet  manner,  but  exposed  to  the 
danger  of  inactivity ;  while  Methodism,  by  constantly  urging  repentance, 
had  a  wholesome  moral  influence,  though  it  was  exposed  to  the  peril  of 
awakening  undue  terrors  in  its  subjects,  and  of  condemning  those  that  were 
without.  Both  tendencies  have  their  common  root  in  pietism,  which  also 
reconciles  these  extreme  tendencies. 

7  Immanuel,  von  Swedenborg  was  born  1688,  and  died  1777  ;  from  the 
year  1743,  he  considered  himself  divinely  inspired.  Comp.  Herder ,  Adrastea 
(vol.  ix.  p.  502.)  His  principal  works  are:  Arcana  ccelestia,  Lond.,  1749, 
ss.,  8,  Tom.  iv,  ed.  Tafel ,  Tub.,  1833.  Yera  Chr.  Rel.  complect,  univ.  Theol. 
Novae  Eccles.  Amst.,  1771,  ii.  4.  In  Germany  (and  especially  in  Wiirtem- 
berg)  the  cause  of  Swedenborg  was  espoused  first  by  Oetinger  (1765),  and 
afterwards  by  Tafel  (1838.)  In  modern  times  the  doctrine  of  Swedenborg 
has  been  revived,  and  has  gained  adherents  in  France  ( Oegger )  [the  United 
States,  England,  etc.]  For  the  literature  compare  Rheinwald,  Repertorium, 
1834,  vol.  ix.  p.  217,  ss.  Respecting  his  doctrines,  see  Hauber ,  in  the 


394 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Tfibinger  Zeitschrift,  1840,  part  4  :  in  reply,  Swedenborg’s  Lebre,  mit  Rtick- 
sicht  auf  die  Einwurfe  gegen  sie  (in  Swedenborg  und  seine  Gegner,  3  Thl.) 
Stuttg.,  1844.  For  the  Literature,  see  Niedner ,  Kirch engeschichte,  p. 
YOG.  \Tofel,  Leben  Swedenborgs,  and  Urkunden,  3  Tble.,  1839-’42.  Ibid., 
Yergleicbende  Darstellung  der  Lebrgegensatze  d.  Katboliken  und  Protest., 
mit  den  Unterscbeidungslebren  Swedenborgs,  Tubing.,  1845,  in  reply  to 
Mohler  (transl.  by  I.  H.  Smithson,  Lond.,  1841.)  Ed.  Pcixten  Hood,  Swed., 
a  Biography  and  Exposition,  1854.  Aug.  Clissold,  Practical  Nature  of  the 
Tbeol.  writings  of  S.,  a  Letter  to  the  Abp.  of  Dublin,  1859  (be  has  also 
written  many  other  works).  Robert  Hindmarsh ,  Rise  and  Progress  of  New 
Jerusalem  Church,  ed.  by  E.  Madely ,  Lond.,  1861.  Hobart ,  Life  of  S., 
Boston,  1831.  J.  J.  G.  Wilkinson4  Biog.  of  S.,  1849  :  Popular  Sketch  of 
S.’s  Phil.  Works,  1847.  Swedendorg’s  Arcana  Apocalypse,  Doctrine  of 
N.  T.  Church,  Divine  Law  and  Wisdom,  Christian  Religion,  etc.,  transl.  and 
published  in  Boston.  Minutes  of  General  Conference,  1789,  sq.  Geo. 
Bush ,  New  Church  Repository,  New  York,  1847,  sqif  and  numerous  works 
on  Swedenborg.] 

One  aspect  of  Swedenborgianism  (the  spirit-seeing),  was  advocated  by  Jung  Stilling 
(1740-1817),  who,  together  with  J.  Gasper  Lavater  (1741-1801)  exerted  himself  for  the 
preservation  and  promotion  of  the  higher  interests  of  religion  among  many  of  his  contem¬ 
poraries,  even  the  educated  classes  of  society.  But  this  mystico-theosophic  tendency  is 

not  to  be  confounded  with  the  mysticism  of  Tauler  and  others ;  the  former,  floating  in  the 

* 

prose  of  the  18th  century,  and  having  passed  through  all  its  reflective  processes,  is  very 
different  from  the  mediaeval  theosophic  mysticism,  nurtured  by  the  poetry  of  the  earlier 
periods.  Comp.  Baumgarten-Crusius ,  Compendium,!.  §  185. 


§  279. 

THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  KANT.  RATIONALISM  AND  SUPERNATURALISM. 

Jiosenkranz,  Gesch.  der  Kantischen  Philosophie,  Lpz.,  1840.  Erdmann ,  Die  Entwick- 
lung  der  deutschen  Speculation  seit  Kant.,  i.,  Lpz.,  1848  ;  comp,  the  next  section. 
[Kuno  Fischer ,  Gesch.  d.  neueren  Phil.,  Bde.,  iii.,  iv.,  1860,  and  Kant’s  Leben  und 
Lehre,  1860.  J.  Willm ,  Histoire  de  la  Philos,  allemande,  4  vols.,  Paris,  1847.  Ar¬ 
ticle  Kant,  in  New  American  Cyclopedia;  by  Wirgman  in  Encyclop.  Londinensis ; 
Stapfer  in  Princeton  Rev.,  iv.  Cousin ,  Lectures  on  Kant,  1882,  in  English  by  Hen¬ 
derson,  1854.  H.  L.  Mansel,  Lecture  on  the  Philosophy  of  Kant,  1860.  Amand 
Saintes ,  La  Yie  et  la  Philos,  de  Kant,  Paris,  1844.] 

After  the  indefinite  philosophy  of  the  eighteenth  century  had,  for 
a  long  time,  attempted  to  reduce  religion  to  mere  ethics,  or  at 
least  to  resolve  all  that  is  specifically  Christian  into  general  and 
abstract  ideas  of  God,  liberty,  and  immortality,  with  occasional 
reference  to  the  current  biblical  doctrines,  a  new  state  of  things  was 
brought  about  by  the  rise  of  Kantianism ,  or  the  critical  philoso¬ 
phy.  This  system  gave  a  more  definite  expression  to  the  previous 
desultory  efforts,  and,  at  the  same  time,  circumscribed  them  in  a 
wholesome  way  within  the  limits  of  a  strictly  scientific  form.  Im - 


§  279.  Rationalism  and  Supernaturalism. 


395 


manuel  Kant /  after  the  example  of  Hume,  subjected  the  human 
intellect  to  a  more  searching  examination,  and  found  that  this  fac¬ 
ulty,  hound  to  time  and  space,  is  unable  to  fathom  the  depths  of 
the  Deity,  can  only  apprehend  the  finite,  and  is  therefore  competent 
to  supply  an  adequate  rule  only  for  our  moral  life.  While  Kant,  on 
the  one  hand,  thus  denied  to  pure  reason  the  power  of  making  any  cer¬ 
tain  statements  concerning  what  is  divine,1 2  on  the  other  he  vindicated 
belief  in  the  existence  of  God,  liberty  and  immortality,  by  represent¬ 
ing  them  as  postulates  of  the  practical  reason.3  That  serious  and 
wise  man  spoke  of  the  Bible  and  Christianity  in  terms  indicative  of 
the  highest  reverence,  and  admitted  that  they  were  designed  to  be 
the  medium  by  which  the  knowledge  of  these  practical  ideas  was  to 
be  generally  diffused  among  the  people.  Though  the  number  of 
theologians  was  small  who  embraced  the  results  of  this  new  philoso¬ 
phy  in  a  strictly  scientific  form,4 *  such  as  Tieftrunk /  Stdudlin ,6  (at 
least  for  a  time),  and  Ammon ,7  it  may  nevertheless  be  said,  that 
what  is  now  called  nationalism ,6 *  as  opposed  to  Super  naturalism* 
had  its  origin  in  the  results  of  the  critical  philosophy  of  Kant. 
The  representatives  of  that  formal  belief  in  revelation,  termed  Su¬ 
pernaturalism,  which  differs  from  the  earlier  forms  of  orthodoxy, 
were  chiefly  Storr ,10 *  and  Reinhard  ;17  the  representatives  of  Ration¬ 
alism,  were  Wegscheider ,12  Paulus ,13  and  Rohr .14  And  lastly,  there 
were  some,  such  as  Schott ,15  Bretschneider ,16  and  Tzschirner,17  who, 
by  propounding  what  is  called  rational  Supernaturalism ,  endeavored 
to  reconcile  these  two  extremes  with  each  other,  or,  at  least,  to  fac¬ 
ilitate  such  a  reconciliation. 

1  Immanuel  Kant  was  born  1724,  and  died  1804  (in  the  year  1740  he 
studied  theology).  His  complete  works  were  edited  by  Rosenkranz  and 
Schubert,  Lpz.,  1837  ss.,  xii.  vols.  [ Hartenstein ,  x.  vols.,  1838-9.] 

2  In  his  work:  Kritik  der  reinen  Vernunft,  Riga,  1781  ;  2nd  ed.,  1787. 
All  later  editions  were  merely  reprinted  from  the  second.  [The  variations 
in  Schubert’s  and  Hartenstein’s  edition.  The  Pure  Reason  was  translated 
into  English,  Lond.,  1841  ;  Analysis  of  it,  1844  ;  a  new  version  by  Meikle- 
john,  1855  ;  French,  by  Tissot,  2d  ed.,  1845.] 

3  See  his  works:  Kritik  der  praktischen  Vernunft,  Riga,  1788  :  Kritik 

der  Urtheilskraft,  1790.  Of  special  importance  for  theology  is  his  work 

Die  Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen  der  blossen  Vernunft,  Konigsb.,  1793. 

2nd  improved  edit.,  1794.  [Kant’s  Criticism  of  the  Practical  Reason  was 

translated  into  French,  by  Barni,  1848;  his  Religion  within  the  Bounds, 

etc.,  by  Trullard,  1841  ;  Criticism  of  Judgment,  by  Barni,  1846  ;  other 

works  by  Tissot ,  etc.  The  first  English  work  on  Kant  was  a  general  and 

Introductory  view,  by  Nitzsc\  Lond.,  1796  :  J.  S.  Reek,  Principles  of  Crit¬ 

ical  Philos.,  1798  :  Willich’s  Elements  of  Critical  Philos.,  1798:  Kant’s 

Essays  and  Treatises,  2  vols.  1798  :  Wirgman's  Principles  of  the  Kantesian 

Philosophy,  1824:  Semple ,  Kent’s  Metaphysics  of  Ethics,  1837  :  John  Rich* 

ardson ,  Metaphysical  works  of  Kant,  1836.  Koack ,  Kant’s  Auferstehung  aus 


396 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


dcm  Grabe,  186.  Comp.  E.  A.  Thilo  on  Kant  in  Zeitsclirift  f.  exacte  Philo¬ 
sophic,  1860,  s.  7-25,  298-321.] 

3  Comp.  Flugge,  Versuch  einer  historisch-kritischen  Darstellung  des  bis- 
herigen  Einflusses  der  Kantischen  Philosophic  auf  alleZweigeder  wissenschaftl. 
und  praktischcn  Theologie,  Hanover,  1796,  1800,  ii.  8.  Reinhard ,  the 
preface  to  the  third  edition  of  his  System  der  christlichen  Moral,  1797.  J. 
F.  Flatt ,  Obss.  ad  comparandam  doctr.  Kant  cum  Christiana,  1792.  (Opusc. 
Nr.  7.)  Kessler ,  Darstellung  und  Priifung  des  Kantischen  Rationalismus  in 
der  Religion,  besonders  in  der  Exegese,  Wtirzb.,  1818.  Ulrici  on  Kant  (and 
Jacobi,  Fries  and  Fichte')  in  Herzog’s  Realencyclop.  [Also  his  article  on 
Religions-Philosophie.] 

4  John  Henry  Teif  trunk  lived  towards  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
and  was  private  lecturer  on  philosophy  in  the  university  of  Halle.  He 
wrote  :  Versuch  einer  Kritik  der  Religion,  1790. — Censur  des  christlich-pro- 
testantischen  Lehrbegriffs,  mit  besonderer  Hinsicht  auft  die  Lehrbticher  von 
Doderlein  und  Morus,  Berlin,  1791—95,  2nd  edit.,  1796.  Dilucidationes  ad 
Theoret.  Christ.  Rel.,  part  1793,  ii. — Religion  der  Mundigen,  1800. 

9  4  K.  F.  Staudlin  was  born  1761,  and  died  1826,  as  professor  of  theology 
in  the  university  of  Gottingen.  He  wrote  Ideen  zur  Kritik  der  christlichen 
Religion,  Gott.,  1791.  Lehrb.  der  Dogmatik  und  Dogmengeschichte,  ibid., 
1800.  3d  edit.,  1809:  4th  edit.,  1822. 

6  C.  F.  Ammon ,  born  1766,  died  1850,  was  formerly  professor  of  theology 
in  the  university  of  Erlangen,  and  first  chaplain  to  the  King  of  Saxony.  He 
wrote :  Entwurf  einer  wissenschaftlich  praktischen  Theologie,  nach  Grund- 
satzen  der  Vernunft  und  des  Christenthums,  1797. — Abhandlungen  zur  Er- 
lauterung  einer  wissenschaftlich-praktischen  Theologie,  1798.  Summa 
Theol.  Christ.,  1803,  translated  into  German,  1805,  ed.  4,  1830.  Aufstlhr- 
licher  Unterricht  in  der  christlichen  Glaubenslehre,  ftir  Freunde  der  evange- 
lischen  Wahrheit,  1807,  8. 

8  The  term  Rationalism  was  employed  previous  to  the  rise  of  the  Kant¬ 
ian  philosophy,  and  frequently  used  in  the  same  sense  as  Naturalism  and 
Deism.  Comp,  the  sect  of  the  Rationalists  in  England,  §  238,  note  2,  and 
Sucro,  Disputatio  de  Estimatione  Rationis  humanae  theologica,  praeside  Paulo 
Antinio,  1706,  p.  8  :  Hinc  tantus  undique  numerus  Rationalistarum,  Natur-  - 
alistarum,  Libertinorum,  Scepticorum,  quinimo  Atheorum ;  and  p.  32 :  His 
Rationalistio  totus  mundus  refertus  est  (quoted  by  Tholuck ,  ii.  25,  26). 
Nevertheless  many  still  confound  these  terms,  some  intentionally,  others  unin¬ 
tentionally.  They  were  separated  by  Kant  himself  (Religion  innerlialb  der 
Grenzen  der  blossen  Vernunft,  pp.  216,  217).  It  may  also  be  said  that  we 
have  a  historical  right  to  make  a  distinction  between  that  Rationalism,  which 
has  been  systematically  developed  in  Germany,  and  for  more  than  half  a 
century  has  exerted,  and  still  exerts,  upon  the  church  an  influence  more  or 
less  considerable,  though  not  always  for  good,  and  between  that  daring  and 
frivolous  Naturalism,  which  has  its  advocates  not  so  much  in  the  church  as 
in  the  world.  German  Rationalism  has,  at  least,  retained  an  historical  and 
Scriptural  Christianity,  and  by  making  use  of  ecclesiastical  institutions, 
e .  g.  by  preaching,  endeavored  to  promote  the  spread  of  moral  and  religious 
principles,  especially  in  opposition  to  pantheistic  tendencies,  which  threaten 


§  279.  Rationalism  and  Supernaturalism. 


397 


to  destroy  the  sense  of  true  morality.  Thus  we  may  he  permitted,  in  due 
acknowledgment  of  its  merits,  to  speak  of  a  Christian  Rationalism.  Some 
writers  have  employed  the  phrase  rationalismus  vulgaris ,  to  distinguish  it 
from  its  modern  forms  of  development,  which  have  not  been  recognized  by 
its  adherents.  Comp.  Bretschneider,  Historische  Bemerkungen  tiber  den 
Gebrauch  der  Ausdrticke  Rationalismus  und  Snpernaturalismus  (Oppositions- 
schriften,  vii.  1,  1829).  A.  Hahn ,  Be  Rationalismi  qui  dicitur  vera  Indole, 
Lips.,  1827.  K.  Hase ,  Die  Leipzigerdisputation,  Lips.,  182. — By  the  same  : 
Streitschriften,  i.,  p.  28;  Dogmatik,  p.  16,  36. — Some  very  appropriate  re¬ 
marks  may  also  be  found  in  Baumgarten-Crusius  Compendium,  i.,  p.  476. 
\L.  J.  Ruckert ,  Der  Rationalismus,  Leipz.,  1859.] 

9  Iu  one  aspect  the  supernaturalistic  theologians  themselves  might  adopt 
the  principles  of  Kant,  inasmuch  as  be  had  demonstrated  the  insufficiency  or 
reason  to  fathom  what  is  Divine.  This  was  done  by  Storr  in  his  Bemer¬ 
kungen  tiber  Kant’s  philosophische  Religionslehre,  translated  from  the  Latin 
by  Susskind ,  Tub.,  1794  ;  see  Baumgarten-Crusius ,  i.,  p.  466.  But  Kant 
did  not  draw  the  inference  that  a  revelation  is  necessary  on  account  of  the 
insufficiency  of  reason  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  set  it  aside  by  denying  to  reason 
the  power  of  setting  up  any  other  than  a  moral  criterion  by  which  to  ascer¬ 
tain  whether  anything  has  been  revealed.  Revelation  was  to  him  problem¬ 
atical,  and  positive  religion  was  merely  the  medium  by  which  the  practical 
truths  of  reason  are  communicated.  Compare  the  special  history  of  doc¬ 
trines. 

10  Gotti.  Chr.  Storr  was  born  1746,  and  died  1805,  as  professor  in  the 
university  of  Tubingen.  Among  his  works  were  :  Doctrinse  Christianse  Pars 
Theoretica,  1793.  Lehrbuch  der  christlichen  Dogmatik,  ins  Deutsche  fiber- 
setzt  mit  Erlauterungen  von  C.  Ch.  Flatt ,  1803.  On  the  conservative  ten¬ 
dency  of  the  school  of  Tubingen,  see  Tholuck ,  ii.,  p.  145-47.  [Storr  and 
Flatt,  Bibl.  Theology,  by  S.  S.  Schmucker ,  Andov.,  2d  ed.,  1836.] 

11  Francis  Volkmar  Reinhard,  was  born  1753,  and  lied  1812,  as  first 
chaplain  to  the  King  of  Saxony.  See  his: — Gestandnisee,  Sulzb.,  1810. 
Epitome  Theol.  Christ,  e  S.  Y.  Reinhardi  acroasibus  academ.  descript,  atque 
observat.  auct.  (ed.  Hoepfner)  1805.  Yorlesungen  tiber  Dogmatik,  mit  lit- 
terarischen  Zusatzen  herausgegeben  von  F.  B.  Berger ,  1801,  and  H.  A. 
Schott ,  Sulzb.,  1811.  The  supernaturalism  of  Reinhard  is  ethical  and  intel¬ 
lectual,  and  had  its  origin  partly  in  a  fine  conscientiousness,  partly  in  strictly 
logical  inferences  which  he  drew  from  certain  philosophical  premises.  Its 
fundamental  principle  was  not  very  different  from  that  of  Rationalism  ;  and 
the  sermons  of  Reinhard,  which  are  distinguished  by  a  prevailing  moralising 
treatment  of  Scripture,  have  served  as  models  for  many  rationalistic  dis 
courses.  Pure  biblical  Supernaturalism  unmixed  with  ecclesiastical  tradition, 
or  philosophical  principles,  is  represented  in  the  following  works  :  A.  Hahn , 
Lehrbuch  des  christlichen  Glaubens,  Leipz.,  1828  [new  edition,  improved,  2 
vols.,  Leipz.,  1857-8];  G.  Ch.  Knapp ,  Yorlesungen  fiber  die  christliche 
Glaubenslehre,  nach  dem  Lehrbegriff  der  evangelischen  Kirche,  herausgegeben 
von  G.  Thilo ,  Halle,  1827  [translated  by  Leonard  Woods,  Andover,  2  vols. 
1831,  and  frequently  republished],  (see  vol.  i.,  p.  30.)  ;  and  Biblische  Glau 


398 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


benslehre,  vornehmlich  fur  den  praktischen  Gebrauch,  berausgegeben  von 
Guericke ,  Halle,  1840. 

13  J.  A.  L.  Wegscheider ,  born  1771,  d.  1848,  from  the  year  1810  profes¬ 
sor  of  theology  in  the  university  of  Halle.  He  wrote  :  Institutions  Theolo- 
giae  Christianas  dogmatic®,  1813,  edit.  8,  1844.  He  was  opposed  by  W. 
Steiger ,  Kritik  des  Rationalismus  in  Wegscheiders  Dogmatik,  Berlin, 
1844. 

13  E.  E.  G.  Paulus ,  born  1761,  d.  1851,  in  Heidelberg  (formerly  in  Jena), 
as  a  professor  and  ecclesiastical  counsellor.  He  endeavored  to  promote  Ra¬ 
tionalism  by  exegetical  works  ( e .  g.  Commentar  liber  das  Neue  Testament.— 
Leben  Jesu),  and  by  advocating  liberal  principles  in  some  of  his  writings  e.  g. 
Sophronizon,  1818,  ss.  Der  Denkglaubige,  1825,  ’29. 

14  J.  F.  Bohr,  born  1777,  died  1848  as  General  Superintendent  in  Wei¬ 
mar.  He  wrote:  Briefe  liber  den  Rationalismus,  zur  Berichtigung  der 
schwankenden  und  zweideutigen  Urtheile,  die  in  den  neuesten  dogmatischen 
Consequenzstreitigkeiten  uber  denselben  gefallt  worden  sind,  Sondershausem 
1813. — From  the  year  1820  he  edited  the  “  Kritische  Predigerbibliothek” 
(Critical  Journal  for  Ministers).  He  further  published :  Grand-  und  Glau- 
benssatze  der  evangelisch-protestantischen  Kirche,  Neust.,  1732,  ’34,  and 
Sermons. 

16  E.  A.  Schott ,  born  1780,  died  1835,  as  professor  of  theology  in  the 
university  of  Jena.  He  wrote  :  Epitome  Theol.  Dogmatic®,  Lipz.,  1811,  ’22. 

18  K.  G.  Bretschneider ,  born  1776,  died  1848,  as  General  Superintendent 
in  Gotha.  He  wrote  :  Handbuch  der  Dogmatik  der  lutherisch-evangelischen 
Kirche,  Leipz.,  1814,  18,  ii.,  edit.  4th,  1838.  Systematische  Entwicklung 
aller  in  der  Dogmatik  vorkommenden  Begriffe,  nach  den  symb.  Buchern  der 
prot.  luth.  Kirche,  ibid.,  1805,  latest  edit.,  1841.  (His  tendency  is  chiefly 
historical.) 

17  H.  G.  Tzschirner ,  born  1778,  died  1828  as  professor  of  theology  and 
superintendent  in  Leipsic.  He  wrote  :  Yorlesungen  uber  die  christl.  Glau- 
benslehre,  nach  dera  LehrbegrifFe  der  evang.  protest.  Kirche,  edited  by  K. 
Ease ,  Leipz.,  1829.  (In  this  work  the  two  systems  of  Rationalism  and 
Supernaturalism  are  coordinately  developed.) 

A  striking  parallel  may  be  drawn  between  the  rationalistic  system  of  Kant  (as  well  as 
the  earlier  system  of  Wolf)  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  development  of  literature  on  the 
other.  The  period  of  Schiller  (his  poem:  Worte  des  Glaubens),  compared  with  the  poem 
of  Urania  by  Tiedge  (1801).  The  same  tendency  manifested  itself  in  works  of  a  popular 
character  (in  homiletical  writings,  in  religious  books,  and  in  works  designed  for  the  young), 
e.  g.  in  the  works  entitled :  Stunden  der  Andacht  [i.  e.  Hours  of  Devotion),  and  its  effect 
in  Dinters  Schullehrerbibel  (i.  e.  the  Schoolmaster’s  Bible,  edit,  by  Dinter.) 


§  280. 

MODERN  SPECULATIYE  PHILOSOPHY.  FICHTE.  SCHELLING. 

G.  M.  Michelet ,  Geschichte  der  Philosophic  von  Kant  bis  Hegel.  Berlin,  1837,  2  vols. 
Chalybceics,  H.  M.,  historische  Entwicklung  der  speculativen  Philosophie  von  Kant 
bis  Hegel.  Dresd.,  1837,  3d  edit.  1843,  [5th  ed.  1860.  Translated  and  published  in 


§  280.  Modern  Speculative  Philosophy. 


399 


Edinb.  and  Andover,  1857].  0.  Fortlage ,  Genetische  Geschichte  der  Philosophie  seit 

Kant.  Leipz.,  1852.  \J.  D.  Morell,  Historical  and  Critical  View  of  the  Speculative 

Philosophy  of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  2  vols.,  repr.,  New  York,  1856.  Amand 
Saintes ,  Histoire  critique  du  Rationalisme  en  Allemagne,  2me.  ed.,  Paris,  1843.  \  Oischin- 
ger ,  Speculative  Entwicklung  d.  Philos,  von  Descartes  bis  Hegel,  2  Bde.,  1854. 
Bartholmess,  Les  Doctrines  religieuses  de  la  Philosophie  Allemande,  2  Tom.,  1856. 
Hermann  Ulrici,  Geschichte  und  Kritik  der  Principien  der  neueren  Philosophie.  2 
Thle.,  Leipz.,  1845.] 

During  the  period  in  which  the  philosophy  of  Kant  prevailed, 
both  Rationalism  and  Supernaturalism  occupied  common  ground  in 
this,  that  the  mode  of  thinking  adopted  by  their  adherents  was  ab¬ 
stract,  and  circumscribed  by  the  categories  of  the  understanding. 
It  was  not  until  the  rise  of  the  modern  system  of  speculative  philos¬ 
ophy,  in  the  Idealism  of  Fichte,1  and  afterwards  in  the  more  devel¬ 
oped  form  of  Schelling’s  Philosophy  of  the  Absolute, 2  that  attention 
was  again  directed  to  that  which  was  most  profound  and  significant 
in  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  i.  e.  in  the  first  place,  to  their  specu¬ 
lative  import  ;  thus  leading  thinking  minds  from  the  mere  periphery 
of  religious  life  back  to  its  centre.  The  Rationalists  and  Super¬ 
naturalists,  attaching  too  much  importance  to  the  empirical  and 
practical  aspect  of  religion,  had  lost  sight  of  its  more  profound  and 
speculative  aspect.  The  opposite  tendency  now  showed  itself. 
The  founders  of  this  new  esoteric  Gnosis  introduced  an  enigmatic 
phraseology,  which  appeared  to  their  contemporaries  as  a  sort  of 
hieroglyphic  language.  To  formulas,  orthodox  in  sound,  they 
attached  a  sense  different  from  that  contained  in  the  doctrines  of 
the  church,  and  sometimes  even  incompatible  with  practical  reli¬ 
gious  truth.  Not  only  was  history  converted  into  a  mere  mythical 
garb  for  speculative  ideas,  but  Kant’s  Trias  of  God,  Liberty,  and 
Immortality,  in  which  the  Rationalists  had  hitherto  believed  with 
a  certain  honest  sobriety,  must  needs  vanish  in  the  presence  of 
that  Pantheism,  which  annuls  the  personality  of  God  and  of  man, 
and  confounds  the  Divine  Being  with  the  world.  So  that  while 
some  were  rejoicing  at  the  return  of  what  they  considered  a  Christian 
philosophy,  others  questioned  the  advantage  of  this  exchange  of  Ra¬ 
tionalism  for  the  speculative  philosophy.3 

1  J.  C.  Fichte ,  born  1762,  died  1814,  as  professor  of  philosophy  in  the 
university  of  Berlin.  In  the  development  of  his  system,  different  periods 
may  he  pointed  out.  In  his  Versuch  einer  Kritik  aller  Offenbarung,  1792, 
which  was  published  anonymously,  and  for  a  time  ascribed  to  Kant,  he  took 
the  same  ground  which  had  long  been  occupied  by  the  latter.  But  his  Wis- 
senschaftslehre,  1794,  ss.,  is  altogether  speculative-idealistic  ;  it  is  a  question, 
whether  the  principles  set  forth  in  it  are  only  apparently  or  really  atheistic. 
On  account  of  its  purely  speculative  shape,  it  was  unfitted  to  be  directly  ap¬ 
plied  to  theology.  In  his  later  writings  (composed  in  a  more  popular  style) 


400 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Fichte  endeavored  to  express  himself  in  a  more  Christian  manner,  and  to 
show  the  agreement  existing  between  his  own  principles  and  those  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  This  is  the  case  especially  in  his  Anweisung  zum  seligen  Leben, 
oder  die  Religionslehre,  Berlin,  1806.  In  this  work  he  attaches,  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  a  moralising  Rationalism,  the  greatest  importance  to  the  Gospel  of 
John,  and  founds  his  system  on  the  unity  of  the  Father  with  the  Son  (whom 
he  regards  as  God  attaining  unto  a  consciousness  of  himself  in  man). — 
Compare  John  Bapt.  Schad  (a  Benedictine  monk),  Gemeinfassliche  Darstel- 
lung  des  Fichte’schen  Systems  und  der  daraus  hervorgehenden  Religions- 
theorie,  Erf.,  1800-1802,  iii.  voll. ;  and  Haumgarten-Crusius ,  i.  p.  455-457. 
K.  Hase ,  Jenaisches  Fichtebiichlein,  Lpz.,  1856.  [ Fichte's  Characteristics 

of  the  Present  Age,  Nature  of  the  Scholar,  Vocation  of  Men,  and  Vocation 
of  the  Scholar,  with  other  works,  transl.  into  English  by  Smith,  with  a 
Memoir,  London.  His  son,  I.  H.,  published  his  father’s  memoir  and  remains. 
Works,  8  vols. :  Remains,  3  vols.] 

a  F.  W.  Jos.  von  Schelling ,  born  1775,  in  1841  called  from  Munich  to  be 
professor  of  philosophy  in  the  university  of  Berlin,  d.  1854.  He  endeavored 
to  bring  about  a  reconciliation  between  the  Idealism  of  Fichte  and  the  theory^ 
of  Realism  (subject  and  object)  by  the  philosophy  of  identity  (like  Spinoza). 
Comp,  his  Vorlesungen  iiber  die  Methode  des  akademischen  Studiums, 
Stuttg.  und  Tub.,  1803,  13,  especially  Lecture  8th  (Concerning  the  historical 
construction  of  Christianity),  and  Lecture  9th  (On  the  study  of  theology). 
He  there  states,  in  opposition  to  the  Rationalism  of  Kant  (p.  180),  that  the 
doctrines  “  of  the  incarnate  God”  and  (p.  184)  of  “  the  reconciliation  of  the 
finite  ( beings )  which  had  fallen  from  God,”  are  the  first  elements  of 
Christianity,  completed  and  perfected  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ; 
this  doctrine,  however,  “  is  absurd ,  unless  it  be  considered  in  its  speculative 
aspect”  (p.  192).  In  Lecture  9th  he  combats  empirical  Supernaturalism,  the 
Rationalism  of  Kant,  and  lastly  the  historical  reception  of  Christianity. — He 
further  wrote  Philosophie  und  Religion,  Tub.,  1804.  Denkmal  der  Schrift 
von  den  gottlichen  Dingen  des  Herrn  F.  J.  Jacobi  (comp.  §  281),  Ttlb., 
1812. — In  the  later  period  of  his  life,  Schelling  manifested  a  stronger  lean 
ing  towards  positive  Christianity  and  theistic  views  ;  see  his  preface  to 
Victor  Cousin,  translated  from  the  French  by  Peckers ,  Stutt.,  1834.  Comp. 
A.  PlancJc,  Schel-ling’s  Nachgelassene  Werke  und  ihre  Bedentung  fiir  die 
Theologie  (in  the  Deutsche  Zeitschrift  fiir  Christliche  Wissenschaft,  viii., 
Marz.,  1857). — The  disciples  of  Schelling  at  first  cultivated  the  science  of 
natural  philosophy,  rather  than  the  philosophy  of  religion  and  of  theology. 
His  philosophy  was  applied  to  theology  by  Heinrich  Blasche  (died  1832)  : 
Das  Bose,  im  Einklange  mit  der  Weltordnung  dargestellt,  Leipz.,  1827,  and 
Philosophie  der  Offenbarung,  Gotha,  1829.  As  regards  the  relation  in 
which  Fschenmayer  stands  to  the  philosophy  of  Schelling,  see  Beinhold , 
Geschichte  der  Philosophie,  ii.  2,  p.  388.  It  must  also  be  admitted  that  the 
philosophical  tendencies  of  Schleiermacher  were  connected  with  those  of 
Schelling,  though  he  applied  them  to  religion  and  theology  in  a  very  dif¬ 
ferent  manner,  more  like  to  Jacobi  (see  §  281).  [Schelling’s  Sammtliche 
Werke;  the  second  division,  4  vols.,  contains  his  Lectures,  viz.,  vol.  i.,  In¬ 
troduction  to  Mythology;  ii.,  Philosophy  of  Mythology ;  iii.  iv.,  Philosophy 


§  281.  Modern  Speculative  Philosophy. 


401 


of  Revelation.  Comp.  Schelling  nnd  Theologie,  Berk,  1846.  Domer , 
Schelling’s  Potenzlehre,  in  Jalirb.  f.  deutsche  Theologie,  1860,  s.  101-156  ; 
Ehrenfeuchter  on  Schelling’s  Philosophie  d.  Mythologie  nnd  Offenbarung, 
ibid.,  1859.  E.  A.  Weber ,  Examen  critique  de  la  Philos,  religieuse  de 
Schelling,  Strasb.,  1860.  Southern  Quarterly  Review,  Feb.,  1857.] 

3  Comp,  his  controversy  with  Jacobi.  F.  Koppen ,  Schellings  Lehre,  oder 
das  Ganze  der  Lehre  vom  absoluten  Nichts,  Hamb.,  1803. — G.  F.  Susskind , 
Prtlfung  der  Schellingschen  Lehre  von  Gott,  Weltschopfung,  moralischer 
Freiheit,  etc.,  Tub.,  1812.  [LL  E.  G.  Paalus ,  Die  endlich  offenbar  gewor- 
dene  positive  Philosophie  der  Offenbarung,  Darmstadt,  1843.  \Kapp^\ 
Friedrich  Wilhelm  Jos.  von  Schelling,  von  einem  vieljahrigen  Beobachter, 
Lpz.,  1843.  Alexis  Schmidt,  Belenchtung  der  neuen  Schellingschen  Lehre, 
Berl.,  1843.  Rosenkrans,  on  Schelling,  1844.  Noack,  Schelling  und  die 
Philos,  der  Romantik,  2  Tide.,  I860.] 

Here  again  is  a  parallel  in  literature  and  art,  viz.,  the  Romantic  tendency  (the  brothers 
Schlegel ,  Tieck ,  Novalis),  Gothe  (viewed  in  contrast  with  Schiller) ;  Creuzer  and  Foss,  Sym- 
bolik  und  Antisymbolik. 

§  281. 

HERDER  AND  JACOBI.  DE  WETTE  AND  SCHLEIERMACHER. 

Though  the  speculative  philosophy  of  Fichte  and  Schelling  seemed 
to  have  brought  about  a  certain  reconciliation  between  the  two  ex¬ 
tremes  above  mentioned,  it  was  still  to  be  seen  whether  that  recon¬ 
ciliation  was  a  real  one.  Herder ,  in  the  spirit  of  a  poet/  pointed 
out  the  historical  nature  of  the  Christian  doctrines,  as  well  as  the 
distinction  between  religion  and  doctrinal  opinions,  and  opened  the 
way,  in  connection  with  modern  culture,  to  a  new  and  living  treat- 
ment  of  Scriptural  subjects,  founded  on  more  accurate  views  of  ori- 
/  ental  and  biblical  modes  of  thought.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
^philosophy  of  the  Absolute  was  combated  by  Frederic  Jacobi /  with 
pious  wisdom.  In  opposition  to  this  philosophy,  he  endeavoured  to 
show  that  faith,  which  he  distinguished  from  knowledge,  must  have 
its  quiet  home  in  the  human  heart.  Though  he  did  not  mean  by 
faith  either  the  orthodox  faith  of  the  church,  or  strict  Scriptural 
faith  (in  the  supernaturalistic  sense),  his  more  profound  and  pro¬ 
phetic  theory  was  welcomed,  even  by  those  who  felt  the  necessity  of  a 
more  positive  system.  The  philosophical  system  of  J acobi,  designed 
to  meet  the  religious  feelings  of  men,  served  as  the  basis  of  a  new 
school,  the  adherents  of  which  are  also  disposed  to  adopt  the  princi¬ 
ples  of  modern  philosophy  in  general.3  They  endeavoured  to  bring 
about  a  reconciliation  between  the  extremes,  by  historico-critical,  as 
well  as  philosophical  researches,  by  psych ologico-anthropological  rather 
than  by  speculative  investigations.  As  its  founders,  we  may  regard 
De  Wette  *  and  Schleiermacherf  though  each  in  a  different  aspect. 


402 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


The  former  labored  to  show,  in  a  psychological  and  synthetic  way,  the 
symbolical  religious  value  of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  in  their  re¬ 
lation  to  the  souls  of  believers;  the  latter  endeavoured,  in  an  analytical 
and  dialectic  manner,  to  apprehend,  in  Christianity,  that  which  is 
peculiar  to  itself,  and  to  represent  the  doctrines  of  the  church  as  the 
perpetual  expression  of  the  feelings  common  to  all  believers. 

1  Johann  Gottfried  von  Herder ,  born  1744,  died  1803,  as  General  Super¬ 
intendent  in  Weimar.  Among  his  numerous  works  are:  Werke  zur  Relig¬ 
ion  und  Tkeologie,  Stuttg.  and  Tub.,  1827-30,  18  vols.  Though  Herder 
did  not  publish  a  system  of  theology,  he  exerted  by  his  enlightened  views 
(misunderstood  by  many)  the  highest  influence  upon  theology.  Among  his 
theological  works,  the  following  have  a  special  reference  to  the  subject  in 
question  :  Briefe  liber  das  Studium  der  Theologie,  Brief  29  ss. ;  Christlich'e 
Schriften  (vom  Erloser  der  Menschen ;  von  Gottes  Sohn,  der  Welt  Heiland ; 
vom  Geist  des  Christhenthums  ;  von  Religion,  Lehrmeinungen  und  Gebrau- 
chen). — The  theological  views  of  Herder  are  given  in  a  collective  form  in  J. 
G.  von  Herder’s  Dogmatik,  aus  dessen  Schriften  dargestellt  und  mit  litteris- 
chen  und  kritischen  Anmerkungen  versehn  von  einem  Freunde  der  Herder’s- 
chen  Gnosis  (Augusti?),  Jena,  1805,8.  Comp,  the  Herder- Album,  Jena, 
1845  :  Herder’s  Lebensbild,  von  seinem  Sohne,  Erlangen,  1846,  ii. ;  and 
Hagenbach  in  Herzog’s  Realencyclopadie.  [On  Herder,  see  George  Ban¬ 
croft, ,  in  North  Am.  Rev.,  vol.  xx. ;  For.  Rev.  xxxvii.;  Christian  Disciple  (H’s 
Letters  on  Study  of  Divinity,  vols.  ii.  iii.)  His  Spirit  of  Heb.  Poetry,  transl. 
by  Jas.  Marsh,  2  vols.,  Burlington,  Yt.,  1833.  Comm,  on  Revel.,  transl.  by 
Sir  George  Duckett,  Lond.,  1821.  Outlines  and  Philosophy  of  History, 
transl.  by  T.  Churchill ,  Lond.,  1800,  4to.,  2d.  ed.,  2  vols.  1803.  Oriental 
Dialogues,  Lond.,  1801.] 

a  Friedrich  Jacobi ,  born  1743,  was,  from  the  year  1804,  President  of  the 
Academy  of  Sciences  in  Munich,  died  1819.  His  entire  works  were  pub¬ 
lished,  Leipz.,  1812,  6  voll.,  his  correspondence,  Leipz.,  1825-27,  2  voll. 
Compare  his  Yon  den  gottlichen  Dingen  und  ihrer  Oflenbarung,  Leipz., 
1811,  and  J.  Kuhn,  Jacobi  und  die  Philosophic  seiner  Zeit,  Mainz,  1824. 
Fricker,  Philos.  Jacobi,  Augsb.,  1854. 

3  Schleiermaclier  acknowledged  that  he  derived  his  first  impulse  from 
Jacobi  ( Haumgarten-Crusius ,  i.  p.  468);  Schelling  also  exerted  some  influ¬ 
ence  upon  him.  On  the  other  hand,  De  Wette  adhered  to  the  principles  of 
Fries,  who  endeavored  to  complete  the  philosophy  of  Kant  on  the  princi- 
ciples  of  Jacobi;  the  three  terms  he  uses  are,  knowledge,  faith,  longing 
(Ahnung). 

4  W.  M.  Leberecht  de  Wette,  born  1780,  professor  of  theology  in  the  uni¬ 
versity  of  Berlin  from  the  year  1810  to  1819,  from  1821  professor  of  theol¬ 
ogy  in  the  university  of  Basle,  d.  1849.  His  theological  opinions  are  de¬ 
veloped  in  his :  Erlauterungen  zum  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmatik,  fiber  Religion 
und  Theologie,  Berlin,  1821. — Lehrbuch  der  christlichen  Dogmatik  in  ihrer 
historischen  Entwicklung,  Berk,  1821,  2  voll.,  Edit.  3d,  1820. — Christliche 
Sittenlehre,  ibid.,  1819-24,  3  voll.,  8vo.  The  following  are  written  in  a 
popular  style :  Ueber  >die  religion,  ihr  Wesen,  ihre  Erscheinungsformen 


§  281.  Modern  Speculative  Philosophy. 


403 


and  ihren  Einfluss  auf  das  Leben  (a  course  of  public  lectures),  Berl.,  182V,  8. 

- — Theodor  oder  des  Zweiflers  Weihe,  1821-28,  2  voll. — Sermons.  *Das 
Wesen  des  christl.  Glaubens,  vom  Standpunlde  des  Glaubens  dargestallt, 
Berlin,  1846.  Comp.  Schenkel,  De  Wette  und  die  Bedentung  seiner  Theol- 
ogie  fiir  unsere  Zeit;  Hagenbach,  W.  M.  L.  de  Wette,  eine  akademische 
Gedachtnissrede,  1850;  Lucke ,  W.  M.  L.  De  Wette,  Hamb.,  1850.  [De 
Wette’s  Introd.  to  0.  Test.,  transl.  and  enlarged  by  Theodore  Parker,  2  vols. 
1850;  Human  Life,  or  Practical  Ethics,  by  S.  Osgood ,  2  vols.;  Theodore, 
or  Sceptic’s  Conversion,  by  J.  F.  Clarke ,  2  vols.,  Boston.] 

6  Friedrich.  Schleiermacher ,  born  1768,  died  1834,  as  professor  of  theology 
in  the  university  of  Berlin.  Among  his  works  are  :  TJeber  Religion.  Reden 
au  die  Gebildeten  unter  ihren  Yerachtern,  Berlin,  1799.  (This  work  in  its 
first  form  has  but  slight  reference  to  positive  Christianity  :  it  rather  favors 
the  suspicion  of  pantheism  ;  but  he  already  views  religion  as  essentially  a 
feeling,  in  contrast  with  its  being  either  knowledge  or  action  ;  the  later  edi¬ 
tions  (4th,  1829)  in  the  notes  indicate  the  transition  from  these  Orations  t<r 
the  standpoint  of  his  Christian  Dogmatics. — Darstellung  des  theologischeu 
Studiums,  Berlin,  1811,  30. — Der  christliche  Glaube,  nach  den  Grundsatzen 
der  evangelischen  Kirche  im  Zusammenhange  dargestellt,  Berl.,  1821,  2  vols., 
1830,  2  voll. — Sermons.  (An  edition  of  his  entire  works  was  commenced 
1834,  in  three  divisions.)  Comp.  H.  JBraniss,  fiber  Schleiermachers  Glau- 
benslehre,  Leipz.,  1835.  K ’.  Rosenkranz ,  Kritik  der  Schleiermacher’schen 
Glaubefislehre,  Koningsb.,  1836.  Baumgarten-Crusius ,  Schleiermachers 
Denkart  und  Verdienst,  Jena,  1834.  Lucke  (Studien  und  Kritiken,  1834, 
part  4.)  G.  Weissenborn ,  Darstellung  und  Kritik  der  Schleiermacher  Dog- 
matik,  Lpz.,  1549  [der  Schleiermacher  Dialectik,  1847.]  Lucke,  in  Studien 
und  Kritiken,  1834.  Strauss,  Schleiermacher  und  Daub,  in  the  Halle’sche 
Jahrbficher,  1834,  No.  20*  [reprinted  in  Strauss’s  Characteristiken  und 
Kritiken,  1839.  Comp,  also,  Heinrich  Schmid,  Schleiermacher’s  Glaubens- 
lehre,  1835  ;  J.  G.  Rdtze,  Erlanterungen  zu  S.’s  christl.  Glauben.,  Lpz., 
1823  ;  F.  W.  Gess,  Uebersicht  fiber  das  theol.  System  Dr.  Fr.  S.  2te 
Aufl.  Rentling,  1837  ;  F.  Vorldnder,  Schleiermacher  Sittenlehre  (a  crowned 
prize  treatise),  Marb.,  1851  ;  Hartenstein,  De  Ethices  a  S.  propos.  Funda- 
mento,  part.  2,  Lips.,  1837.  Jul.  Schaller,  Yorlesungen  fiber  Schleierma¬ 
cher,  1844.  Herzog ,  Ueber  die  Anwendung  des  ethischen  Princips  der 
Individualist  in  S.’s  Theologie,  Stud,  und  Krit.,  1846.  Stechow ,  S.  und  die 
neuere  Theologie  in  Deutsche  Zeitschrift,  July,  1855.  Sigwart,  S.’s  Er- 
kenntnisstheorie,  in  Jahrb.  ffir  deutsche  Theol.,  1857;  ibid.,  S.’s  psycholo. 
gische  Yoraussetzungen,  in  the  same.] 

[Translations  of  Schleiermacher’s  Essay  on  Luke,  by  C.  Thirlwall  (while 
still  a  student  of  law),  Lond.,  1825  ;  Introd.  to  Plato’s  Dialogues,  by  Dod¬ 
son,  1827  ;  on  Sabellius  and  Trinity,  by  Moses  Stuart  in  Bibl.  Repos,  v.  vi. ; 
Outlines  of  Study  of  Theology,  by  Farrar,  Edinb.,  1850.  On  Schleierma- 

*  Tor  the  genesis  of  Schleiermacher’s  System,  see  his  Correspondence  with  J.  Ch.  Gass , 
with  a  biographical  preface  by  W.  Gass,  Berl.,  1852 ;  his  Autobiography  (in  his  26th 
year),  published  by  Lommatzsch ,  in  the  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  hist.  Theol.,  1851 ;  and  Gelzer's 
Monatsblatter,  vi.  on  Schleiermacher  and  the  United  Brethren,  a  contribution  to  the  inter¬ 
nal  history  of  German  Protestantism. 


404 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


cher  and  De  Wette,  being  a  Third  Letter  to  Mr.  Andrews  Norton  (in  tho 
Controversy  on  the  “  Latest  Form  of  Infidelity,”)  by  George  Ripley,  Bost., 
1840.  Bretschneider's  View  of  Schleiermacher’s  Theology,  translated  in 
Bibliotheca  Sacra.,  Andover,  1853,  pp.  596-617.  H.  Davis ,  Schleierma- 
cher,  in  Christ.  Exam.  (Boston),  July,  1852.  Schleiermacher  in  Kirchen- 
freund,  1854,  a  series  of  articles.  Schleiermacher’s  Life  and  Times,  National 
Rev.  (Lond.),  April,  1859.  G.  Baur  on  S.  (in  Studien  und  Kritiken)  trans¬ 
lated  in  Presb.  Qu.  Rev.  (Phil.),  Jan.,  1860.  Schleiermacher’s  Leben  in 
Briefen,  2,  Berk,  1858,  transl.  by  Rowan ,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1859  ;  comp. 
Westminster  Rev.,  July,  1861. — The  theology  of  Schleiermacher  made  an 
epoch,  in  consequence  of  its  peculiar  relation  to  the  two  opposite  systems 
of  rationalism  and  supernaturalism,  in  the  midst  of  whose  conflicts  it  ap¬ 
peared.  It  “  combines  the  elements  of  both,  in  representing  the  essence  of 
Christianity  to  be  the  immediate  utterance  of  the  religious  consciousness, 
which  in  its  inmost  spirit,  it  says,  is  Christian.”  This  Christian  conscious¬ 
ness  “  has,  on  the  one  hand,  whatever  is  essential  in  Christianity  ;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  viewed  as  only  the  more  definite  explication  and  con¬ 
crete  expression  of  what  is  inherent  in  man’s  religious  nature.”  The  same 
general  tendency  of  thought  represented  by  Kant  is  also  developed  in  Schleier¬ 
macher’s  system ;  but  this  is  only  one  of  its  aspects.  The  other  aspect  is 
“  that  what  makes  the  substance  of  the  Christian  consciousness  is  not  some¬ 
thing  which  it  produces,  by  and  of  itself,  but  something  imparted,  and  re¬ 
ceived.  The  Christian  consciousness  is  the  reflex  and  expression  of  the 
Christian  fellowship.”  See  Baur ,  Dogmengeschichte,  p.  353.] 


§  282. 

ATTEMPTS  AT  RESTORATION.  PRACTICAL  PIETY  AND  MODERN 

THEOLOGY. 

But  this  reconciliation,  which  could  he  appreciated  only  by  the 
educated  classes  of  society,  did  not  meet  the  wants  of  Christians  ajb 
large.  Though  the  conflict  between  Rationalism  and  Supernatural¬ 
ism  at  first  appeared  to  be  confined  to  the  schools,  a  general  desire 
after  more  substantial  spiritual  food  soon  manifested  itself  among 
the  people,  for  a  long  time  indifferent  to  their  religious  interests, 
but  now  aroused  by  the  signs  of  the  times.  Instead  of  the  timid 
Supernaturalism  of  the  schools,  itself  not  unaffected  by  Rational¬ 
ism,  the  ancient  faith  boldly  raised  its  voice  against  modern  culture. 
Claus  Harms,  on  the  occasion  of  the  centenary  of  the  German 
Reformation,  published  a  number  of  theses,  in  which  he  proclaimed 
the  necessity  of  returning  to  the  old  Lutheran  faith,  and  proved 
that  the  religion  of  reason  is  worthless.1  Sartorius  pointed  out 
the  close  relation  existing  between  Rationalism  and  Romanism.8 
The  controversy  raged  with  violence,  both  parties  denouncing  each 


§  282.  Practical  Piety  and  Modern  Theology.  405 


other.*  But  the  prevailing  practical  tendency  of  the  age,  which 
manifested  itself  in  the  spread  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  religion, 
and  in  the  founding  of  religious  societies,4  prevented  some  of  the 
evils  which  have  been  expected  from  these  contests.  Nor  was  the 
progress  of  scientific  theology  neglected  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is 
grateful  to  see  that  the  nobler  interests  of  science  were  elevated 
ah  ve  these  struggles.  Commentators,  as  well  as  the  writers  on 
ecclesiastical  history,  obtained  a  clearer  perception  of  the  necessity 
of  guarding  against  dogmatical  prejudices  on  the  one  hand,  and,  on 
the  other,  of  entering  into  more  profound  researches  as  to  the  real 
nature  of  their  topics,  and  of  handling  these  subjects  as  living  forms, 
in  contrast  with  the  setting  up  of  dead  schemes.5  The  distinguish¬ 
ing  principles  of  the  various  denominations,  the  consideration  of 
which  had  long  been  neglected  from  want  of  interest,  were  now 
more  fully  and  scientifically  discussed  in  the  works  on  Symbolism.6 
Christian  Ethics  was  brought  into  closer  connection  with  systematic 
theology,7  the  whole  of  theological  science  was  regarded  in  a  new 
light,8  and  the  way  was  prepared  for  a  total  reformation  in  practical 
theology.8 

1  Claus  Harms ,  born  1*778,  was  professor  of  theology  in  the  university 
of  Kiel,  died  1855  (Comp.  Rheinwald,  Repertorium,  xxx.  p.  54;  his  Auto¬ 
biography,  Kiel,  1851  ;  Baumgarten,  Denkmal  fur  Claus  Harms,  Braun¬ 
schweig,  1855;  Pelt ,  in  Herzog’s  Realencyclop.).  The  title  of  the  work 
refered  to  is  :  Das  sind  die  95  Theses  oder  Streitsatze  Dr.  Luthers,  zum 
besondern  Abdrucke  besorgt,  undmit  andern  95  Satzen  vermehrt,  Keil,  1817. 
On  the  controversy  to  which  it  gave  rise,  see  the  Evangelische  Kirch enzei- 
tung,  1829,  No.  45-48,  58-60,  80,  ss.,  88,  ss.  (Both  Ammon  and  Schleier- 
macher  took  part  in  it.)  Afterwards  he  wrote  :  “  Dass  es  mit  der  Vernunft- 
religion  nichts  ist,”  Leipz.,  1819,  to  which  Krug  replied  in  his  treatise: 
“Dass  es  mit  der  Vernunftreligion  doch  etwas  ist.”  [Among  these  keen 
Theses  of  Harms  are  the  following  :  2.  A  progressive  Reformation,  as  now 
understood,  reforms  Lutheranism  into  heathenism,  and  Christianity  out  of 
the  world.  5.  The  Pope  of  our  times,  our  Antichrist,  in  respect  to  faith  is 
Reason  ;  in  respect  to  action  is  Conscience.  11.  Conscience  cannot  forgive 
sins.  21.  In  the  sixteenth  century,  forgiveness  of  sins  cost  money ;  in  the 
nineteenth  we  have  it  for  nothing  ;  we  do  it  ourselves.  24.  The  old  hymn 
book  says  :  “  Thou  hast  two  places  before  thee,  O  man !”  Now-a-days,  the 
devil  is  killed,  and  hell  walled  up.  32.  The  so-called  rational  religion  is 
either  without  religion,  or  without  reason,  or  without  both.  33.  It  says, 
the  moon  is  the  sun.  42.  The  relatioji  of  the  so-called  natural  religion  to 
revealed,  is  like  the  relation  of  nothing  to  something,  or  else  like  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  revealed  religion  to  revealed  religion. — Baumgarten- Crushes  wrote 
against  Harms,  XCV.  Theses  Theologiae  contra  Superstitionem  et  Profana- 
tionem.  Schrodter ,  Archiv.  d.  Harms’schen  Thesen,  oder  Charakteristik 
der  Schriften,  die  fur  oder  gegen  dieselben  erschienen  sind,  Altona,  1818,] 

3  E.  W.  Ch.  Sartorius ,  born  1797,  professor  of  theology  in  the  univer 


406 


Fifth  Period.  The  Aoe  of  Criticism. 


sity  of  Konigsberg,  then  in  Dorpat,  d.  1859.  He  wrote  :  die  Religion 
ausserhalb  der  Grensen  der  blossen  Vernunft,  nach  den  Grundsatzen  des 
wahren  Protestantisrnus  gegen  die  eines  falschen  Rationalismus,  Marb., 
1822.  [Defence  of  Augsburg  Confession,  2d  ed.,  1853;  Christ’s  Person  and 
Work,  transl.  by  0.  S.  Stearns ,  Post.,  1850  ;  Doctrine  of  Holy  Love,  3 
vols,  1840-56  ;  on  Worship,  1852  ;  Soli  Deo  Gloria,  1859.]  Comp,  also 
Heinr.  Steffens ,  von  der  falschen  Theologie  und  dem  wahren  Glauben,  eine 
Stimme  aus  der  Gemeinde,  Breslau,  1823. 

3  The  Rationalists  charged  the  Supernaturalists  (Pietists,  mystics),  with 
holding  Antiprotestant  principles  ;  the  Supernaturalists  demanded  in  their 
turn,  that  their  opponents  should  secede  from  the  church,  and  sometimes  in¬ 
sisted  upon  their  expulsion. — The  Disputation  of  Leipsic,  1827. — The  Evan- 
gelische  Kirchenzeitung,  edited  by  Hengstenberg,  took  a  prominent  part  in 
this  controversy. — Respecting  the  denunciations  of  Halle,  and  other  events, 
see  Hase ,  Church  Hist.,  p.  562.  [Rase,  Die  Leipz.  Disputation,  1827. 
Rudelbuch ,  Das  Wesen  des  Rationalism.,  1830.  Gesenius  and  Wegscheider 
were  the  special  objects  of  attack  in  Hengstenberg’s  Journal.  Comp.  Ur- 
kunden  betreffend  die  neuesten  Ereignisse,  etc.,  Lpz.,  1830  ;  Fortgesetzte 
Urkunden,  1830.  Bretschneider ,  Schreiben  an  einen  Staatsmann,  1830; 
Zweites  Schreiben,  1830.  Baumgarten- Crusius,  Gewissensfreiheit,  etc., 
Berl.,  1830.] 

4  These  were  the  Bible  Societies  and  Missionary  Societies  which,  after 
the  example  given  by  England,  were  established  on  the  continent,  e.  g ., 
in  Basle,  1816,  Berlin,  1823. — They  are  the  most  eloquent  apologists! — 
The  advocates  of  mere  negative  principles  only  criticise,  but  do  not  produce 
anything. 

5  After  exegesis,  subsequently  to  the  time  of  Ernesti  (though  often  in  an 
arbitrary  method)  had  again  become  the  servant  of  theological  opinions  (thus  in 
the  case  of  Storr  and  Paulus),  Winer  advocated  the  claims  of  the  grammatico- 
historical  interpretation,  while  Liicke  (in  his  commentaries  on  the  writings 
of  John),  prepared  the  way  for  a  dynamic  and  penetrating  system  of  inter¬ 
pretation.  Ecclesiastical  history,  which  formerly  had  often  been  regarded 
as  the  history  of  human  follies,  was  treated  with  laudable  impartiality  by 
Gieseler ,  and  proved  by  Neander  [David  Mendel],  to  indicate  the  develop- - 
ment  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth.  It  is  worthy  of  observation,  that 
the  newly  awakened  historical  tendency  also  manifested  itself  in  many  mono 
graphs  on  historical  subjects.  These  and  other  circumstances  contributed  to 
a  more  scientific  treatment  of  systematic  theology,  and  helped  to'  frighten 
away  the  ghosts  on  both  sides. 

6  Marheineke  and  Winer ,  etc.,  see  Vol.  i.  p.  42. 

7  De  Wette  pointed  out  many  defects  in  the  treatment  of  Christian  ethics’ 
in  his  Kritische  Uebersicht  der  Ausbildung  der  theolosdschen  Sittenlehre  seit 
Calixt  (Theologische  Zeitschrift,  Berlin,  1819,  p.  247,  ss.) — Christian  ethics 
were  treated  in  connection  with  systematic  theology  by  C.  J Nitzsch ,  Sys¬ 
tem  der  christlichen  Lehre,  Bonn,  1829,  edit.  5th,  1844  [transl.  in  Clark’s 
Library,  Edinb.],  and  J.  T.  Beck ,  die  christliche  Lehrwissenschaft  nach  den 
biblischen  Urkunden,  Stuttg.,  1840,  i.  1,  1841,  i.  2. 

8  From  the  time  of  Schleiermacher ,  Theological  Encyclopasdia  was  made 


§  283.  The  Philosophy  of  Hegel.  407 

a  separate  branch  of  theological  science,  which  had  its  effect  also  on  doc¬ 
trinal  theology. 

0  Schleiermacher ,  and  after  him  Nitzsch,  MarheineJce, ,  Alex.  Schtveizer , 
Vinetj  Gaup  [Palmer ,  Ehrenfeuchter^\  and  others,  applied  scientific  treat¬ 
ment  to  practical  theology.  This  involved  a  gain  for  the  practical  interests 
of  dogmatic  theology. 


§  283. 

THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  HEGEL,  AND  THE  YOUNG  HEGELIANS. 

Fichte ,  J.  H.,  iiber  Gesensatz,  'Wendepunct  und  Ziel  der  heutigen  Philosophie,  Heidelb., 
1832.  Leo,  Die  Hegelingen,  Halle,  1838.  Zeller's  Theologische  Jahrbiicher  (since 
1849.)  0.  A.  Thilo,  Die  Wissenschaftlicllkeit  der  modernen  speculativen  Tkeologie 

in  ihren  Principien  beleuchtet,  Leipz.,  1851. 

Nor  did  philosophy  stand  still.  The  theory  of  Schelling,  first 
applied  to  the  natural  world,  with  a  preponderance  of  the  imagina¬ 
tive  element,  was  transplanted  by  Hegel’s  dialectic  method,  in  a 
more  definite  manner,  to  the  historical  and  ethical  sphere,  and  was 
thus  brought  into  a  closer  connection  with  the  theology  of  Protes¬ 
tant  Germany.  The  highest  place  was  assigned  to  the  idea  even  in 
religion,  while  feelings  and  abstract  conceptions  were  deferred  to  a 
lower  province.  Here  was  the  principal  difference  between  the  sys¬ 
tem  of  Hegel  and  that  of  Schleiermacher.  During  the  lifetime  of  the 
founder  of  this  new  philosophical  school,  Daub 2  and  Marheineke* 
were  the  only  two  theologians  who  decidedly  adopted  his  principles. 
But  after  his  death  his  views  gained  a  large  number  of  adherents  in 
the  rising  generation,  among  whom,  however,  so  great  a  difference 
obtained  respecting  some  of  the  most  important  theological  ques¬ 
tions,  that  they  soon  separted  into  two  distinct  parties.  The  one, 
called  the  right  wing  of  the  school  of  Hegel,4  advocates  supernatur- 
alistic,  or  theistic  and  conservative  principles,  while  the  tendency  of 
the  other  (the  left)5  is  of  a  critical  and  destructive  character.  In  addi¬ 
tion  to  these  there  are  some  others,  philosophers  as  well  as  theolo¬ 
gians,  who  have  struck  out  a  new  and  independent  path  for  them¬ 
selves,  as  well  in  the  philosophical6  as  in  the  theological  sphere.7 
However  much  these  writers  differ  in  their  tendencies  (to  describe 
which  more  fully  belongs  to  doctrinal  theology,  in  connection  with 
the  philosophy  of  religion),  they  for  the  most  part  agree  in  discard¬ 
ing  the  former  antagonism  between  Rationalism  and  Supernaturalism, 
in  having  regard  to  the  demands  of  a  spirit  of  inquiry,  as  well  as 
the  wants  of  faith,  and  in  investigating  in  a  more  appreciative 
manner  the  doctrines  received  by  the  church.  Nor  do  they  rest 
satisfied  either  with  appealing  to  foreign  authority,  or  with  a  super¬ 
ficial  and  partial  judgment.  And  herein  is  the  guarantee  for  the 
success  of  their  further  efforts. 


408 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


1  Georg  Freidrich  Wilhelm  Hegel ,  born  1770,  was,  from  the  year  1818, 
professor  of  philosophy  in  the  university  of  Berlin,  and  died  1831.  His 
entire  works  were  published  Berlin,  1832-45,  18  voll.  Among  them  are: 
Phanomenologie  des  Geistes,  Bamb.,  1807.  Encyklopadie  der  philosophi- 
schen  Wissenchaften,  Heidelb.,  1817,  edit.  4th,  1845.  Yorlesungen  tiber  die 
Philosophie  der  Religion,  edited  by  Marheineke ,  Berlin,  1832,  ii. — He  also 
wrote  a  remarkable  preface  to  Heinrichs'  Religionsphilosopkie,  1822  (in  re¬ 
spect  to  the  religious  sentiment.) — Concerning  the  latest  controversies  see 
H  Leo ,  die  Hegelingen,  Halle,  1838,  39.  Kahnis ,  Ruge  und  Hegel,  Quedl., 
1838.  Rheinwald ,  Repertorium,  xxxi.  p.  28,  ss.  [On  Hegel,  see  New 
American  Cyclopedia,  sub  voce.  His  works  and  life  are  described  in  Rosen - 
kranz,  Hegel’s  Leben,  1844.  In  English  have  appeared  his  Philosophy 
of  History,  by  Sibree ,  in  Bohn’s  Library,  1857 ;  his  Subjective  Logic,  by 
Sloman  and  Wallon ,  1855.  In  French,  his  Aesthetics  by  JBenard,  5  vols., 
1840-52  ;  his  Logic,  2  vols.,  by  A.  Vera ,  1860,  who  also  in  1855  published 
an  Introduction  a  la  Philosophie  de  Hegel,  the  fullest  account  of  his  system 
outside  of  Germany.  Among  the  chief  criticisms  of  his  theory  in  Germany 
are  Schelling  in  his  later  works ;  H.  Ulrici ,  Ueber  Princip  und  Methode 
der  Hegelschen  Philosophie,  1841 ;  A .  Trendelenburg ,  Die  logische  Frage 
in  Hegel’s  System,  and  Logische  Untersuch ungen,  1840;  G.  A.  Gabler,  Die 
Hegelsche  Philosophie,  1833  ;  K.  P.  Fischer ,  in  his  Grundziige  des  Systems 
der  Philosophie,  1854,  sq. ;  C.  H.  Weisse ,  Ueber  den  gegenwartigen  Stand- 
punkt  der  phil.  Wissenschaft,  and  in  other  works;  Rosenkranz,  Die  logische 
Idee,  1859-60;  Erdmann ,  in  Gesch.  d.  neueren  Philos.;  J.  H.  Fichte,  in 
his  Grundziige  zum  Systeme  der  Philosophie,  3  Bde.,  1833-46,  etc.  C.  L. 
Michelet ,  Schelling  und  Hegel,  1839.  The  Hegelian  school  was  represented 
by  the  Jahrbticher  f.  wissenschafliche  Kritik,  1827,  sq. ;  the  left  wing,  by 
Ruge  and  the  Hallische  Jahrbticher,  1838.  A  new  Journal,  advocating  the 
system  has  been  started  by  C.  L.  Michelet ,  Der  Gedanke,  1860.  The  first 
vol.  contains  a  full  bibliography  of  the  school. — The  Zeitschrift  f.  Phil,  und 
spekul  Tkeoh,  1837-48,  ed.  /.  H.  Fichte ,  and  Zeitschrift  f.  Phil,  und  phil. 
Kritik,  ed.  by  Ulrici  and  others,  since  1849,  opposes  the  Hegelian  pan¬ 
theism.] 

2  Karl  Daub,  born  1765,  was  professor  of  theology  and  ecclesiastical 

counsellor  in  Heidelberg,  and  died  1836.  He  had  passed  through  the  en¬ 
tire  development  of  modern  philosophy  from  Kant  to  Hegel.  His  works 
were  published  by  Marheineke  and  Dittenberger,  Berk,  1838,  ss.  We  men¬ 
tion  :  Theologumena  s.  doctrinse  de  Relig.  Christ,  ex  Natura  Dei  perspecta 
repetendse  Capita  potiora,  Heidelb.,  1806.  Einleitung  in  das  Studium  der 
Dogmatik,  aus  dem  Standpuncte  der  Religion,  ibid.,  1810. — Judas  Ischariot, 
oder  das  Bose  im  Verhaltnisse  zum  Guten  betrachtet,  3  parts,  ibid.,  1816- 
19, — Die  dogmatische  Theologie  jetziger  Zeit,  oder  die  Selbstsucht  in  der 
Wissenschaft  des  Glaubens,  ibid.,  1833. — System  der  christlichen  Dogmatik 
(first  part)  edit,  by  Marheineke  and  Dittenburger,  Berlin,  1841.  Comp. 
(Strauss)  Daub  und  Schleiermacher  in  his  Charakteristiken  u.  Kritiken, 
Lpz.,  1839.  Rosenkranz,  Erinnerungen  an  K.  Daub,  Berlin,  1837.  [W. 

Herrmann ,  Die  speculative  Theologie  in  ihrer  Entwicklung  durch  Daub 
dargestellt,  Hamburgh,  1847.]  Among  the  disciples  of  Daub  (in  part  too, 


§  283.  The  Philosophy  of  Hegel. 


409 


of  Schleiermacher)  a  new  path  in  theology  has  been  struck  out  by  Richard 
Rothe  of  Heidelberg,  in  his  Theologische  Ethik,  Wittenb.,  1845,  2  Bde. 
[Compare  his  articles  Zur  Dogmatik,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1859-60.] 

3  Philip  Marheineke ,  born  1780,  was  professor  of  theology  in  the  uni¬ 
versity  of  Berlin,  and  died  1846.  He  wrote:  Grundlinien  der  christlichen 
Dogmatik  als  Wissenschaft,  Berlin,  1819,  1827.  [Theol.  Yorlesungen,  ed, 
Matthies  und  Vatke,  5  Bde.,  1847,  s*/.] 

4  G abler ,  Goschel ,  Rosenkranz ,  Schaller ,  Rothe.  See  Thilo ,  u.  s. 

5  D.  F.  Strauss,  die  christliche  Glaubenslehre  in  ikrer  gescliicktlichen 
Entwicklung  und  ira  Kampfe  mit  der  modernen  Wissenschaft  dargestellt,  ii. 
Stuttg.,  1840,  41.  Comp.  K.  Ph.  Fischer ,  die  speculative  Dogmatik  von 
Strauss,  erster  Band,  gepriift,  Tub.,  1841.  Thilo ,  ubi  supra.  [Comp.  Rosen - 
kranz.  Kritik  d.  Strauss’schen  Glaubenslehre,  1845.  Kahnis ,  Die  moderne 
Wissenschaft  des  Dr.  Strauss,  and  die  wissenschaftliche  Basis  der  Strauss7- 
sclien  Dogmatik,  1842.  Sartorius,  Die  christliche  Glaubenslehre;  Beurthei- 
lung  der  Straussischen  Dogmatik,  1842. — In  more  recent  times,  this  tendency 
has  been  most  ably  advocated  by  Tubingen,  as  represented  by  Ferdinand 
Christian  Baur ,  born  1792,  died  1860,  at  first  a  disciple  of  Schleierma- 
cher,  and  by  degrees  applying  the  principles  of  the  Hegelian  system  to  the 
reconstruction  of  Christian  history  and  of  Christian  doctrines.  Among  his 
works  are  Christian  Gnosis,  1835  ;  replies  to  Mohler’s  Symbolism,  1836,  sq .; 
History  of  the  Trinity,  3  vols.,  1843-5  ;  History  of  the  Atonement,  1838  ; 
History  of  Doctrines,  1847,  1858.  Schwegler  and  Zeller  are  his  chief  dis-  * 
ciples.  Comp.  Baur’s  work  on  the  Tubingen  School,  2d  ed.,  1860,  and  Karl 
Phase,  Die  Tiibinger  Schule,  1855.  A.  Hilgenfeld ,  Das  Urchristenthum. 
Ilengstenberg’s  Evang.  Kirchenzeitung,  1846;  Keyser,  Rev.  de  Theologie, 
1856;  Uhlhorn  in  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theologie,  1858  (transl.  into  French 
by  Sardinoux,  in  Revue  Chretienne,  Suppl.,  1861) ;  Neue  Evang.  Kirchenzei¬ 
tung,  Jan.,  1861  ;  L’Ecole  de  Tubingue  in  Revue  Germanique,  1861  ;  Christ. 
Examiner,  Boston,  1858.  On  Bruno  Bauer  and  his  criticism  of  the  Gos¬ 
pel,  see  Gutachten  d.  evang.  Theol.  Facultaten,  Berl.,  1842.] 

6  Among  those  who  lived  during  the  period  of  Kant  and  Fichte  we  may 
mention  Reinhold ,  Fries ,  Krug,  Bouterweck,  and  others  ;  in  modern  times, 
Ritter ,  I.  Id.  Fichte,  C.  Id.  Weisse,  K.  Ph.  Fischer,  Billroth,  Erdmann , 
Brobisch,  and  others.  [The  school  of  Herbart  is  contending  with  that  of 
Hegel  for  supremacy,  on  the  opposite  (viz.,  a  realistic)  basis ;  (revival  of  the 
doctrine  of  monads?)  J.  F.  Herbart,  b.  1776,  Prof,  in  Gottingen,  d.  1841. 
Works,  ed.  by  Hartenstein ,  12  vols.,  Lpz.,  1850-52  ;  Minor  Philos.  Works, 
with  biography,  by  Hartenstein ,  3  vols.,  1841-3.  Among  his  disciples  are 
M.  W.  Drobricli,  Prof,  in  Leipz.,  Religionsphil.,  1840,  Math.  Psychologic, 
1845,  etc.;  Gustav  Hartenstein,  Metaphysik,  1836;  Ethik,  1844;  G.  F. 
Tante ,  Religionsphil.,  1840-52  ;  F.  Exner ,  d.  1853,  Psychologie  der  Hegel- 
schen  Schule,  1843-5  ;  Theod.  Waitz ,  Psychologie,  1849  ;  F.  II.  Allihn , 
Verderbliche  Einfluss  d.  hegelschen  Phil.,  etc. ;  E.  A.  Thilo,  Moderne 
RechtsphiL,  1860 ;  Rob.  Zimmermann ,  Prof,  in  Wien,  etc.  The  school  is 
represented  by  the  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  exacte  Philosophic,  ed.  by  Allihn  and 
Zeller,  I860.] 

7  The  principles  of  Schleiermacher  were  adopted,  though  with  a  stronger 


410 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


leaning  towards  orthodox  theology,  by  Nitzsch  (comp.  §  282,  note  7),  and 
A.  D.  Ch.  Tivesten ,  Vorlesnngen  tiber  die  Dogmatik  der  evangelisch-luther- 
ischen  Kirche.  ii.,  Hamb.,  1826,  edit.  3d,  1834.  On  the  other  hand,  Carl 
Hase  allowed  to  critical  and  speculative  tendencies  a  greater  influence  :  see 
his  Lelirbuch  der  evangelischen  Dogmatik,  Stuttg.,  1826;  fourth  improved 
edition,  1850  ;  Gnosis,  oder  evangelische  Glaubenslehre  fur  die  Gebildeten 
in  der  Gemeinde,  Leipzig,  1827,  ii. — The  most  recent  systems  of  theology 
are  J.  T.  Beck,  1850;  Rothe ,  Ethik,  1845-6;  Julius  Muller  [Lehre  von 
der  Siinde,  2  Bde.,  4th  ed.,  1838  ;  transl.  in  Clark’s  Edinb.  Library];  Lieb- 
ner  (Christologie,  Bd.  i.),  1849;  J.  P.  Lange,  1849-51  [Christliche  Dog¬ 
matik,  i.,  Phil.  Dogmatik,  ii.,  Positive,  iii.,  Angewandte];  Martensen,  1850-6 
[from  the  Danish  into  German]  ;  Ebrard ,  1851-2  [Christliche  Dogmatik  ; 
F.  A.  Philippi ,  Kirchliche  Glaubenslehre,  3  Bde.,  Stuttg.,  1854-9,  to  be 
continued  ;  J.  C.  K .  Hofmann ,  Der  Schriftbeweis,  ein  theologischer  Ver- 
such,  3  Bde.  Nordlingen,  1852,  sq.,  2d  ed.,  1859;  G.  Thomasius ,  Christi 
Person  und  Werk,  3  vols.,  1853—9  ;  Daniel  Schenkel ,  Die  christi.  Dogmatik 
vom  Standpunkte  des  Gewissens,  2  Bde.,  1859-60 ;  Ch.  H.  Weisse ,  Philoso- 
phische  Dogmatik,  2  Bde.  1855-60,  and  others.]  Though  representing 
different  tendencies,  yet  these  have  as  a  common  aim,  to  give  a  philosophical 
basis  to  the  Biblical  and  orthodox  system  of  faith,  and  thus  to  conquer 
rationalism  by  spiritual  supremacy. 

That  tendency  which  endeavored  to  bring  about  a  reconciliation  between  the  two  ex¬ 
tremes  was,  at  first,  chiefly  represented  in  the  Theologische  Zeitschrift,  edited  by  Schleier- 
macher ,  Be  Wette,  and  Lucke,  and  afterwards  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken ,  edited  by 
Ullmann  and  Umbreit  (from  the  year  1828). — There  have  since  been  several  other  period¬ 
icals  of  this  class,  particularly  the  Zeitschrift  f.  christliche  Wissenschaft  und  Christ.  Leben 
[founded  by  Meander ,  Nitzsch ,  Muller ,  Tholuck ,  and  others],  from  1850:  the  Jahrbucher  f. 
deutsche  Theologie,  by  Liebner ,  Ehrenfeuchter  [ Dorner ],  etc.,  Stuttg.,  1856. — The  organ 
of  the  more  advanced  Hegelian  party  is  the  Theologische  Jahrbucher,  since  1842,  by 
Baur,  Zeller  [now  the  Zeitschrift  f.  wissenschaftliche  Theologie,  ed.  by  Eilgenfeld .] 


§  284. 

THE  LATEST  RATIONALISTIC  REACTION. 

After  the  destructive  tendency,  in  its  self-delusion,  had  advanced 
even  to  the  denial  and  dissolution  of  the  religious  self-conscious¬ 
ness,1  the  modern  Rationalismus  vulgaris  came  forward  with  all 
its  claims  to  become  a  religion  for  the  people,  fitted  to  the  wants 
of  the  times,  and  denuded  as  far  as  possible  of  all  dogmas  ;  in 
short,  to  he  for  the  people  what,  it  said,  religion  had  long  been  for 
a  great  part  of  educated  minds.  This  was  the  aim  of  the  so-called 
Protestant  Friends ,  or  Friends  of  Light  ( Lichtfreunde ),2  started  in 
Kothen,  who  obtained  adherents  in  different  countries,  especially 
in  the  north  of  Germany,  and  were  soon  divided  up  into  several 
branch  unions,  and  free  churches.3  For  the  development  of  the 
History  of  D  >ct.rines  they  have  only  a  negative  importance,  and 


§  284.  Latest  Eationalistic  Reaction. 


411 


tlieir  place  is  rather  in  the  transient  story  of  the  day  than  in  the  ear¬ 
nest  history  of  religious  truth.  Of  far  greater  moment  is  the  strug¬ 
gle  on  fundamental  principles,  which  has  again  sprung  up  between 
the  conservative  ecclesiastical  party  and  the  party  of  progress,  as 
represented  by  Stahl  and  Bunsen .4 

1  Ludwig  Feuerbach ,  Das  Wesen  des  Christenthums,  Lpz.,  1841  (in  the 
service  of  a  pneumatic  water-cure  !)  ;  Das  Wesen  der  Religion,  2te.  Aufl., 
1850.  [Essence  of  Christianity,  transl.  by  Marian  Evans.  Lond.,  New  York, 
1855.  “Religion  is  a  dream  of  the  human  mind;”  “all  theology  is  an¬ 
thropology,”  etc.  Feuerbach  has  also  written  Charakteristiken  des  modernen 
Afterchristenthums ;  P.  Bayle ,  1838;  Philos,  und  Christenthums,  1839*; 
Leibnitzsche  Philosophic,  1837,  etc.] 

3  Uhlich  and  Wislicenus. — A  meeting  was  held  in  Kothen,  May  29,  1844. 
Wislicenus  work,  Ob  Schrift,  ob  Geist,  1845.— Thirteen  Articles. —  Uhlich'1  s 
Reformation  Theses. — See  Niedner ,  Kirchengesch.,  p.  890,  who  gives  the 
titles  of  the  works. — Another  controversy  was  that  of  Dulon  in  Bremen ; 
compare  the  Votum  of  the  Heidelberg  faculty,  drawn  up  by  Schenkel , 
1852. 

8  Societies  in  Breslau  and  Konigsberg.  Pupp ,  after  his  exclusion  from 
the  Free  Church  was  a  preacher  of  the  Free  Evangelical  Church  in  Konigs¬ 
berg.  See  Niedner ,  as  above.  [. Base ,  p.  589.] 

4  Bunsen ,  Zeichen  der  Zeit,  Leipz.,  1855 ;  Gott  in  der  Geschichte,  3  Bde., 
Leipz.,  1857.  These  works  gave  rise  to  a  controversy. — The  Protestantische 
Kirchenzeitung,  edited  by  H.  Krause,  may  be  considered  as  the  organ  of  the 
freer  Protestant  tendency,  introduced  by  Schleiermacher.  [ Christian  Charles 
Josias  Bunsen ,  d.  1791,  ambassador  in  England,  1841-53,  died  Nov.  28, 
1860.  Among  his  works  are,  history  of  the  Passion  and  Still  Week,  1841  ; 
Church  of  the  Future,  1845,  translated,  1847  ;  Eygpt’s  Place  in  Universal 
Hist.,  4  vols.,  English  by  Cottrel ,  1848-60  ;  Ignatius,  1847  ;  Hippolytus  and 
his  Age,  4  vols.,  1855,  and  then  6  vols.,  1854,  sq.  (in  English,  2  in  German, 
1852,  sq.) ;  Signs  of  the  Times,  transl.;  Bible  Work, not  completed,  8  parts, 
1858-60.  Comp.  B.  Baehring,  Bunsen’s  Bibelwerk,  und  seine  Bedentung 
ftir  die  Gegenwart,  Lpz.,  1861.  H.  Gelzer ,  Bunsen  als  Staatsman  und 
Schriftsteller,  Gotha,  1861. — Frederick  Julius  Stahl ,  Prof,  in  Erlangen, 
called  to  Berlin,  1841.  Works  :  Protestantische  Kirchenverfassung;  Rechts- 
philosophie.  Leading  the  party  of  the  reaction,  he  has  been  involved  in 
controversies  on  Protestantism  and  Catholicism,  on  the  Union  (advocating 
the  claims  of  High  Lutheranism),  and  against  the  Evangelical  Alliance:  Was 
ist  die  Revolution,  3te,  Aufl.,  1852  :  Der  Protestantismus  als  politisches 
Princip.,  4te.,  Aufl.,  1853  ;  Die  katholischen  Widerlegungen,  1854  ;  Christl. 
Toleranz,  1855  ;  Wider  Bunsen,  1856  (Schenkel,  Ftir  Bunsen,  Wider  Stahl) ; 
Der  Christl.  Staat,  1858  ;  Die  Lutherische  Kircheund  die  Union,  1859,  2te. 
Aufl.,  I860.] 


412 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


•  §  285. 

THE  PROTESTANT  CHURCH  AND  DOCTRINE  OUTSIDE  OP  GERMANY. 

The  doctrinal  controversies  related  in  the  preceding  sections 
(§  279-284),  were  almost  entirely  confined  to  Protestant  Germany, 
and  partially  affected  Denmark  and  those  parts  of  Reformed  Switz¬ 
erland,  in  which  the  German  language  is  spoken.1  Nearly  all  the 
other  Protestant  countries  either  took  no  notice  of  these  conflicts, 
or  formed  erroneous  and  onesided  opinions  concerning  them.2  Lu¬ 
theran  orthodoxy  maintained  on  the  whole  its  ground  in  Sweden.3 
In  the  Netherlands,  the  advocates  of  a  more  moderate  (Arminian) 
tendency  opposed  the  rigid  system  of  the  orthodoxy,  established  in 
the  canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort.4  In  England  there  were  some 
partial  deviations  from  the  39  Articles  ;5  and  some  new  sects  sprung 
up.6  The  theology  called  Puseyism ,  nurtured  in  the  university  of 
Oxford,  tended  in  both  worship  and  dogma  towards  the  Catholic 
Church  ;  distinguishing  however  between  the  genuine  Catholic  and 
the  Roman  Catholic.7 — The  Evangelical  Alliance,  started  in  London 
in  1846,  is  a  grand  attempt  to  do  away  with  the  ecclesiastical  and 
dogmatic  dissensions  ;  but  German  theology  can  hardly  be  satisfied 
with  its  formal  articles.8 — Nor  did  Protestant  theology  in  France 
keep  pace  with  the  German  culture  (with  the  exception  of  Stras- 
burg)  ;9  the  laity  were  here  the  first  to  display  a  spirit  of  more  pro¬ 
found  inquiry  into  religious  truths.10  The  commotions  in  the  Church 
of  Geneva  and  the  Canton  de  Yaud  cannot  be  compared  (either  as  to 
matter,  or  to  form)  with  the  contests  between  Rationalism  and  Su¬ 
pernaturalism  in  Germany.11  But  the  barriers  which  have  hitherto 
prevented  foreign  churches  from  appropriating  the  results  of  German 
learning  seem  gradually  disappearing,  and  a  growing  desire  manL 
fests  itself  to  become  acquainted  with  the  religious  conflicts  of  the 
birth-place  of  the  Reformation. 

1  In  Denmark  the  controversy  between  Rationalism  and  Supernaturalism 
was  carried  on  by  Clausen  and  Grundtvig  (see  the  Evangelische  Kirchenzei- 
tung,  1827,  etc.  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1834,  part  4;  ITase,  Church  His¬ 
tory,  pp.  525,  526,  561-2.)  [ Rudelbach ,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  lutherische  Theologie, 
1841  ;  and,  more  fully,  1859-60,  in  opposition  to  the  later  high  church 
Lutheranism  of  Grundtvig.  Among  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Switzerland 
in  the  last  century,  Zurich  was  especially  affected  by  the  theological  tenden¬ 
cies  then  prevailing  in  Germany.  (Afm  and  Lavater  were  the  representa¬ 
tives  of  Supernaturalism,  though  each  in  a  different  way — Hiifeli ,  Stols , 
and  Schulthess ,  of  Rationalism.)  The  theology  of  Schleiermacher  in  the 
course  of  this  century  was  here  represented  by  L.  Usteri ,  the  author  of  the 


§  285.  History  of  Doctrines  in  other  Lands.  413 

t 

“  Paulinischer  Lehrbegriff,”  which  in  the  later  editions  inclines  to  the  views 
of  Hegel  and  Rosenkranz  ;  and  Alexander  Schweizer ,  [author  of  the  Glau- 
benslehre  der  Reform.  Kirche,  2  Bde.,  1844,  and  Central-Dogmen  der  Re¬ 
form,  Kirche,  2  Bde.,  1854-6  ;  an  advocate  of  strict  necessity  as  the  inmost 
sense  of  the  Reformed  theology.  The  call  of  Strauss  to  Zurich,  1839,  led  to 
a  violent  controversy,  and  the  call  was  revoked.  See  Gelzer,  Die  Straussis- 
chen  Zerwiirfuisse  in  Zurich,  1843;  Aug.  Roden ,  Geschichte  der  Bernfung 
des  Dr.  Strauss,  1840.] — In  Schaffhausen,  Georg  Muller ,  (died  1819;  he 
wrote  :  Vom  Glauben  der  Christen,  Wintherthur,  1815,  2  vols.)  endeavoured 
to  propagate  principles  akin  to  those  £>f  Herder,  but  in  a  more  orthodox 
sense.  In  Berne,  orthodoxy  long  maintained  its  ground  in  alliance  with  the 
aristocratic  government. — Since  the  expulsion  of  the  first  representative  of 
Rationalism  ( Wettstein ,  1730)  from  Basle,  its  advocates  have  always  been 
excluded  from  that  town.  For  a  long  time  it  was  (unjustly)  considered  the 
seat  of  pietism. — By  the  renovation  and  foundation  of  the  Swiss  universities 
(Basle,  1817-35,  Zurich,  1833,  Berne,  1834),  and  the  vocation  of  German 
professors  {Be  Wette  received  a  call  from  the  university  of  Basle,  1821),  the 
theology  of  Switzerland  was  brought  into  a  closer  connection  with  that  of 
Germany. 

3  J.  H.  Rose ,  der  Zustand  der  protestantischen  Religion  in  Deutschland,  4 
Reden  an  der  Univ.  Cambridge,  1825,  translated  from  the  English,  Leipz., 
1826.  \Hugh  James  Rose ,  b.  1795,  d.  1838,  State  of  Protestantism  in  Ger¬ 
many,  2d  ed.,  1829  ;  comp.  Edinb.  Rev.,  vol.  54,  and  E.  B.  Pusey's  Histor¬ 
ical  Inquiry,  2  vols.,  1828-30.] 

8  See  Guericke ,  Kirchengeschichte,  ii.,  p.  1084,  1087. 

4  Concerning  the  latest  events,  see  Die  Unruhen  in  der  niederlandisch- 

reformirten  Kirche  wahrend  der  Jahre,  1833-39,  von  X.  herausg.  von  Giese- 
ler ,  Hamb.,  1840.  Among  the  Dutch  theologians  Heringa ,  Clarisse ,  Roy  a - 
ards,  and  others  have  followed  the  development  of  German  theology.  \J. 
Clarisse ,  Encyclop.  Theol.,  1835.  J.  Ez.  Heringa ,  Opera  Exeg.,  new  ed., 
1845  ;  Het  gebruiken  misbruik  der  Kritik,  1793.  H.  J.  Royaards ,  Chrest. 
Patrist.,  1831,  7 ;  Comp.  Hist.  Eccles.,  1840;  Geschiedenis  van  het  Christ¬ 
endom  Nederland,  1853.  B.  Van  Wijnpersse,  on  Div.  of  Christ,  1793.  H. 
Muntinghe ,  d.  1824,  Theologia  Theoret. ;  Brevis  Expos.  Vet.  Foederis,  1827. 
— The  present  divisions  of  the  schools  in  Holland  are,  1.  Strict  orthodox,  at 
the  Hague,  represented  by  Groen  van  Prinsterer ,  Capadose,  the  poet  Bil- 
derjik ,  (d.  1831).  2.  Moderate  orthodox,  under  the  motto,  Earnestness  and 

Peace.  Chantepie  de  la  Saussaye ,  has  written  on  the  Religious  Crisis  in 
Holland,  in  defence  of  their  views  (Paris,  1860)  against  Prinsterer:  Domine 
Beets ,  Helldring ,  Hasenbroek ,  Van  Rhyn ,  Van  Osterzeey  Boedes  and  Trottet , 
(see  his  article  on  Dutch  theology,  in  the  Rev.  Christ.,  1860)  also  belong 
here.  3.  The  school  of  Groningen  (moderate  liberal) ;  Van  Heusde  (the 
Platonist,  d.  1845),  Hofstede  de  Groot ,  etc.  4.  Rationalists,  chiefly  at  Ley¬ 
den.  Prof.  Scholten ,  of  Leyden  in  his  “  Doctrine  of  Ref.  Church”  and  a  His¬ 
tory  of  Philos,  of  Religion”  is  “  deistico-pantheistic.”  Opzoomer  of  Utrecht 
would  reconcile  man  with  himself  by  means  of  philosophy.  See  Von  Prin¬ 
sterer ,  The  Anti-Revolutionary  Party,  Arnst.,  1860  ;  Chantepie ,  La  Crise 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


414 

Relig.,  1860.  Reville ,  Les  Controverses  en  Hollande,  in  Rev.  des  denx  Mondes, 
1860,  translated  in  Christ.  Exam.,  Boston,  1861.] 

6  Thus  the  principles  of  Arianism  propounded  by  Samuel  Clarice ,  (died 
1729)  at  the  commencement  of  the  present  period,  were  adopted  by  some. 
[See  above  §  234,  p.  213,  and  §  262,  p.  332.]  Howe  [Sherlock  ?]  was  accused 
of  tritheism. — Among  the  English  divines  in  North  America,  Edwards  is  the 
most  distinguished.  His  chief  works  are  on  the  Freedom  of  the  Will,  and  on 
Original  sin.  [Comp.  §  285,  5.] 

6  The  rise  of  new  sects  both  in  England  and  the  United  States  of  America 
is  of  no  importance  for  the  history  of  doctrines  [!].  The  greatest  sensation 
wTas  made  by  Irving  (1 792-1 834^,  whose  views  gained  some  adherents 
even  on  the  continent.  See  Hohl ,  Bruchstucke  aus  dem  Leben  und  den 
Schriften  Ed.  Irvings,  St.  Gallen,  1839.  \Edward  Irving ,  b.  1792,  d.  1834. 
Works:  Oracles  of  God,  3d  ed.,  1834  ;  Coming  of  Messiah,  2  vols.,  1827  ; 
Babylon  and  Infidelity  foredoomed,  1826  ;  The  Last  Bays,  1850  ;  Sermons, 

3  vols.,  1828;  Homilies  on  Sacraments,!,  1828;  Exposition  of  Book  of 
Revelation,  4  vol.,  1831  ;  Orthodox  and  Catholic  Doctrine  of  our  Lord’s 
Human  Nature,  1831.  Proceedings  of  London  Presb.  in  his  Case,  1831. 
Irving  and  his  adversaries  in  Fraser's  Magaz.,  14  ;  Death  of  Irving,  by  Thos. 
Carlyle ,  ibid.,  vol.  11  ;  Trial  of  Irving,  Niles’s  Register,  vol.  44.  See  also 
Eel.  Mag.,  14 ;  Meth.  Quar.,  9  ;  Christ.  Exam,  (by  Lamson),  3  ;  Christ. 
Month.  Spec.,  6;  English  Review,  1848;  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1849; 
Schaff ’s  Kirchenfreund,  1850.  Jacobi,  Lehre  d.  Irvingiten,  1853,  Geo.  PH 
kington ,  The  Tongues  proved  to  be  English,  Spanish,  Latin,  1831.  The  First 
and  Last  Days  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  from  the  French  of  C.  M.  Carre ,  by 
M.  N.  M.  Hume ,  Lond. — Liturgy  and  Litany,  Lond.  and  New  York,  1856. 
On  the  revival  of  the  apostolate  in  the  United  States,  and  the  church  as  it  is 
here,  compare :  W.  W.  Andrews ,  True  Constitution  of  Church,  1854. 
Apostles  Given,  Lost  and  Restored,  1855.  \J.  S.  Davenport\  The  Perma¬ 

nency  of  the  Apostolic  Office,  1853.  See  also  Chronicle  of  Certain  Events, 
1826-52.  Lond.,  1852.] 

T  The  first  traces  of  this  tendency  date  from  about  1820;  the  British 
Magazine,  1832  ;  the  Tracts  for  the  Times,  1833  sq.  The  Catholic  ten-, 
dency  advanced  till  1841.  Chief  representatives,  Dr.  Pusey  in  Oxford,  (b. 
1800),  T.  Keble ,  J.  H.  Newman ,  who  went  over  to  the  Catholic  church. 
Comp.  Weaver ,  Der  Puseyismus  in  seinen  Lehren  und  Tendenzen,  from  the 
English,  by  Amthor ,  Leipz.,  1845.  Fock  in  Schwegler’s  Jahrbucher  der 
Gegenwart,  Aug.,  1841.  Bruns  and  HafneJs  Repertorium,  May  and  July, 
1846.  Allg.  Berlin.  Kirchenzeitung,  1846.  ( Niedner ,  Kirchengeschichte, 

p.  867.)  Allg.  Augsburg,  Zeitung,  1847,  No.  46,  Beilage.  [See  next  sec¬ 
tion.] 

8  See  Der  Evangel  Bund,  von  K.  Mann  and  Theod.  Platt ,  Basel,  1847. 
[Annual  Reports  of  the  Alliance,  particularly  that  of  the  Berlin  Meeting, 
1857,  by  Ed.  Steaned\ 

9  Blessig ,  Hafner ,  Emmerich ,  Kienlen ,  Bruch ,  Reuss ,  Redslob ,  C.  Schmid. 

10  Benj.  Constant ,  Cousin ,  Guizot.  Among  the  theologians  we  mention  : 
Vincent  of  Nismes  (Meditations  et  Discours,  1830,  ss.),  Vinet ,  died  1847, 
Merle  dd  Aubigne,  Gaussen ,  Sardinoux.  Periodicals :  Ami  de  la  Religion, 


§  285.  History  of  Doctrines  in  other  Lands.  415 


Semeur  ;  Lien  (organ  of  a  moderate  liberalism) ;  Esperance  (moderate  church, 
orthodoxy) ;  Archives  du  Christianisme  (organ  of  Dissenters) ;  Avenir 
(organ  of  the  Free  Church).  See  Ullmann ,  Polenische  Erorterungen,  in 
Stud,  und  Kritiken,  1852.  H.  Reuchlin ,  Das  Christenthum  in  Frankreich, 
Hamb.,  1837. 

11  The  formal  aspect  of  the  controversy  respecting  revelation  was  not  at 
all  mentioned.  The  opponents  of  the  so-called  Momiers  ( Cheneviere ,  and 
others)  may  be  said  to  hold  Supernaturalistic  principles,  inasmuch  as,  proceed¬ 
ing  from  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  and  the  integrity  of  the  canon,  they  found 
their  dogmas  upon  Scripture  (like  the  Socinians).  That  Arianism  (!)  could 
issue  from  this  shows  the  difference  of  French  and  German  nationalism. 
Comp,  the  works  of  Cheneviere ,  Rost ,  Malan.  Histoire  veritable  des  Mo¬ 
miers,  Par.,  1824.  Basle,  1825.  With  this  work  compare:  Re  Wette ,  Ein- 
ige  Bemerkungen  iiber  die  kirchlicken  Bewegungen  in  Genf  (Easier  wis- 
senschatiche  Zeitschrift,  iii.  part  2,  p.  33  ss.) ;  and  “  Genfs  Kirchliche  und 
Christliche  Zustande,”  by  a  theologian  of  French  Switzerland,  in  the  Zeit¬ 
schrift  far  cliristl.  Wissenschaft,  1850,  No.  30-34. — The  Darbyites  and 
Irvingites  have  also  made  disciples  in  Switzerland.  On  the  former  see  J. 
Herzog ,  Les  Freres  de  Plymouth  et  John  Darby,  Lausanne,  1845  :  on  the 
latter,  see  §  302,  Note  4.  A  controversy  on  the  inspiration  of  the  Scripture 
was  started  by  Scherer,  in  Geneva :  a  new  French  school  on  this  basis,  has 
its  organ  in  Colani's  Revue  de  Theologie  et  de  Philosophic,  Strasb.,  since 
1850. 

[The  power  of  the  materialistic  school  of  philosophy  in  France  was  broken 
by  the  Lectures  of  Laroniguiere ,  1811-12  ;  of  Royer- Collar d,  on  the  basis 
of  Reid;  by  Maine  de  Biran,  d.  1824;  and  especially  by  Victor  Cousin , 
1828  sq.,  in  his  System  of  Eclecticism,  followed  by  Jouffroy  (d.  1848),  and 
others.  A  philosophical  deism  is  inculcated  by  Jules  Simon.  Auguste 
Comte’s  (d.  1857)  Positive  Philosophy  makes  induction  the  only  philosoph¬ 
ical  process.  The  Eclectic  school  was  opposed  by  Ledru  Rollin,  and  by 
the  Catholic  traditionalists  :  it  is  represented  in  the  Dictionnaire  des  Scien¬ 
ces  philosophiques,  4  vols.  Cousin's  Psychology,  by  C.  S.  Henry ,  4th  ed., 
New  York,  1856  ;  on  the  True,  Beautiful  and  Good,  by  0.  W.  Wight , 
1852  ;  Lectures  on  Kant,  by  Henderson,  Lond.,  1854.  Hamilton  on  Cou¬ 
sin  in  Edinb.  Rev.,  50  (and  in  his  Discussions).  Comp.  North  Am.  Rev.,  29  ; 
President  Ray,  in  Christ.  Spec.,  1835;  Princeton  Review,  1856.  Fuchs , 
Kritik,  Berlin,  1848.  H.  Taine ,  in  Philos.  Fran§aises,  1857.  Rosenkranz,  in 
Zeitschrift  f.  Philos.,  23. — Jouffroy's  Introd.  to  Ethics,  transl.  by  W.  H. 
Channing ,  2  vols.,  Bost.,  1840. — Jules  Simon,  Le  Devoir,  2me.  ed.,  1854. 
La  Religion  Naturelle,  1857,  transl.  Lond.  On  Maine  de  Biran,  see  Astie, 
in  Am.  Theol.  Rev.,  1859. — On  Comte,  see  Harriet  Martineau’s  exposition, 
2  vols.,  1854;  Lewes’,  1853;  Christ.  Examiner  (by  Thos.  Hill),  1854;  Prince¬ 
ton  Rev.,  1856,  1858;  Methodist  Quart.,  a  series  of  articles,  1852  sq. ; 
British  Quart.,  1854,  1858.  Robinet ,  Notice  sur  la  Vie  de  Comte,  Paris, 
I860.] 

[Madame  de  Krudener ,  1814,  in  Pays  de  Yaud,  helped  to  revive  religious 
belief;  the  party  called  Momiers.  The  Haldanes  in  Geneva.  The  Societe 
Evangelique,  1831.  Malan  on  Justification  :  tracts  and  hymns.  Merle 


416  Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 

< TAubigne ,  Hist,  of  Reformation.  Gaussen,  Theopneustia,  transl.  by  Kirk, 
new  ed.,  Bost.,  1860.  A  more  liberal  tendency  was  represented  by  Alex. 
Vinet ,  Essai  sur  les  manifestations  des  convictions  religieuses,  2d  ed.,  1859, 
(on  separation  of  Church  and  State)  transl.  by  C.  T.  Jones ,  1843  :  Essais  de 
Philosophic  morale,  1837  ;  Pastoral  Theol.  and  Homiletics,  transl.  by  T.  H. 
Skinner,  N.  Y.,  1854:  Moralistes  des  xvie.  et  xviie.  Siecles,  1859;  His- 
toire  de  la  Predication,  etc.,  1861.  Comp.  Astids  Esprit  de  Yinet,  1860. 
Agenor  de  Gasparin ,  School  of  Doubt,  and  School  of  Faith,  etc. — The  Revue 
Chretienne,  published  in  Paris  since  1853,  edited  by  Ed.  de  Pressense,  rep¬ 
resents  substantially  the  school  of  Yinet. — Besides  his  work  on  Inspiration, 
Scherer  has  also  written  on  the  Church,  and  Melanges  de  critique  religieuses, 
1861  ;  he  represents  an  extreme  rationalistic  tendency.  Ed.  de  Pres¬ 
sense,  Histoire  des  trois  premiers  Siecles  de  l’Eglise,  2  Tomes,  1858. — French 
Protestantism  has  of  late  years  shown  an  increased  zeal  in  rescuing  its  early 
history  from  neglect ;  see  the  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  de  l’histoire  du  Protest- 
antisme  Frang.,  1852  sq.  :  the  histories  of  De  Felice ,  Soldan,  and  Puaux  ; 
the  republication  of  Calvin’s  works  in  French,  etc.] 

§  285,  a. 

THEOLOGY  IN  ENGLAND  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

[The  moderate  theology  of  the  divines  of  Queen  Anne's  reign,  the 
ethical  tendencies  of  the  Latudinarians  (see  §  225,  h ),  and  the  gen¬ 
eral  disposition,  in  the  contest  with  infidelity,  to  reduce  Christianity 
to  its  lowest  terms,  perpetuated,  through  the  larger  part  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  an  indifference  to  thorough  theological  discussion. 
High  Church  principles  were  still  inculcated  by  the  Non-jurors1,  who 
however  were  excluded  from  any  general  influence.  As  the  result 
of  the  Bangor  controversy,2  the  powers  of  the  church  in  Convoca¬ 
tion  were  annulled.  The  succession  of  Anglican  divinity  was  kept 
up  through  the  century,  by  the  archbishops,3  Potter ,  Seeker ,  and' 
Laurence  ;  Thos.  Burnet ,  master  of  the  Charter-House  ;4  the 
bishops  Tomline ,  Thos.  Newton ,  and  Thos.  Wilson  ;  Stackhouse , 
Skelton  and  Worthington  ;  bishops  Halifax ,  Horsley ,  Hurd  and 
Watson  ;  and  carried  into  the  next  century  by  bishops  Burgess ,  Van 
Mildert ,  and  Mant .6  Warburton 6  was  the  most  learned  and  vigor¬ 
ous  polemic  of  the  period.  The  theological  system  of  Hey ,  the 
ethics  and  evidences  of  Paley ,  and  to  some  extent  the  Arminianism 
of  John  Taylor ,  gave  the  tone  to  the  popular  religious  discourse.7 
In  William  Law ,  Bishop  Edmund  Law ,  and  Jones  of  Nayland, 
were  found  a  more  earnest  religious  spirit.8  Biblical  learning  was 
represented  by  Abp.  Newcome ,  Pococke ,  Robert  Lowth ,  Kennicett , 
Horne ,  Boothroyd ,  Parkhurst  and  Herbert  Marsh*  Hutchinsoni- 
anism10  was  a  peculiar  and  transient  attempt  to  show  that  all 
natur-e  is  symbolical  of  divine  truth.  Calvinism11  was  still  defended 


285,  a.  Theology  in  England. 


417 


in  the  established  church  by  Toplady  and  Scott  ;  but  its  chief  advo¬ 
cates  were  found  among  the  non-conformists,12  Ridgley ,  Watts , 
Doddridge ,  Gill  and  Williams.  The  Unitarian  controversy  in  this 
and  the  next  century  was  continued  between  Priestley  and  Horsley , 
Belsham,  and  Pye  Smith ,  and  others.13  Subscription  to  the  Thirty- 
Nine  Articles  and  the  Athanasian  Creed  was  defended  on  grounds 
of  expediency.14] 

[Metaphysics  were  discarded,  and  mental  philosophy  was  taught 
on  the  law  of  association  by  Hartley  ;  on  the  principles  of  common 
sense  by  Tucker  ;  on  the  basis  of  materialism  by  Priestley  P  The 
idealism  of  Berkeley 16  is  an  isolated  phenomenon.  Bishop  Butler 17 
established  the  ethical  system  on  a  purer  basis,  and  Price  vindicated 
an  independent  morality.18] 

1  [Abp.  Sancroft  and  two  other  bishops  refused  the  oath  of  allegiance, 
1688. — Scottish  bishops  joined  them.  The  Non-jurors  were  divided,  1720, 
on  the  question  of  prayers  for  the  dead,  and  the  eucharistic  sacrifice.  Their 
Liturgy  was  revised,  1765.  After  the  death  of  the  Pretender,  Charles  Ed¬ 
ward,  they  acknowledged  George  III.,  and  in  1792  were  released  from  the 
penal  laws.  The  last  of  the  non-juring  bishops  was  Boothe ,  who  died  in 
Ireland,  1805.  Among  their  divines  were  Nathl.  Spinckes  (d.  1727),  Hickes , 
Kettlewell ,  Leslie ,  John  Johnson ,  Ken ,  Dodwell ,  Francis  Lee ,  Wm.  Law , 
Thos.  Brett.  See  Thos.  Lathbury's  Hist,  of  Non-jurors,  Lond.,  1845; 
Bowles ,  Life  of  Bp.  Ken,  2  vols.,  1830;  another  Life  by  a  Layman,  1851  ; 
comp.  Dublin  Rev.,  July,  1853.  On  their  consecration,  see  Appendix  to 
PercivaVs  Apology  for  Apostol.  Succession.  Comp.  Macaulay'' s  Hist.,  vol. 
iv.  and  Notes  and  Queries,  2d  s.  xi.  232.] 

3  [The  Bangor  Controversy,  1717  sq.,  was  called  forth  by  a  sermon  of  the 
Latitudinarian  Hoadly,  Bp.  of  Bangor  (1715-1761  :  Works,  3  vols.,  1763), 
maintaining  that  the  established  church  is  a  human  institution  ;  opposed  by 
Drs.  Snape,  Sherlock ,  and  others  ;  the  Convocation  was  prorogued,  and  has 
had,  until  within  the  past  few  years,  merely  a  formal  being.  On  Law's  Let¬ 
ter  to  Hoadly,  see  below,  note  7.  Works  on  Convocation,  see  ante,  p.  295. 
P.  Skelton,  Vindication  of  Hoadly,  Works,  v.  211-251.] 

3  [ John  Potter,  Abp.  Canterb.,  b.  1674,  d.  1747.  Theol.  Works,  3  vols., 
Oxf.,  1753  ;  on  Church  Government,  reprinted  in  Tracts  of  Angl.  Fathers, 
vol.  iii. ;  Archseologia  Grgeca,  2  vols.,  1797-99  ;  editions  of  Lycophron  and 
Clemens  Alexandrinus. — Thos.  Seeker,  Abp.  Cant.,  from  1758  to  1768. 
Works,  12  vols.,  Lond.,  1770 ;  Life  by  Bp.  Porteus  :  Lectures  on  Catechism 
(Works,  vols.  10,  11). — Richard  Laurence,  Abp.  of  Cashel,  b.  1760,  d. 
1839  ;  Bampton  Lectures,  1804  (3d  ed.,  1838),  on  the  Articles  termed  Cal- 
vinistic ;  on  Baptismal  Regeneration,  3d  ed.,  1838  ;  Documents  on  Predes¬ 
tination  Controversy,  1819  ;  Ascensio  Isaise,  1819  ;  Book  of  Enoch,  transl., 
1821  ;  on  Griesbuch’s  Classification  of  MS.,  1814*.] 

4  [Thos.  Burnet,  Master  of  the  Charter-House,  b.  1635,  d.  1715.  He  led 
the  way  in  modern  cosmogony  by  his  Telluris  Theoria  Sacra,  4  Books, 
1681—89,  popularised  in  his  Sacred  Theory  of  the  Earth,  7th  ed.,  2  vols., 


418 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


1759  ;  De  Statu  Mortuorum  et  Resurgentium,  trausl.  (with  au  auswer  to  al 
*  the  Heresies  therein)  by  M.  Earbery,  2d  ed.,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1738  (advocates 
the  Millennium  and  the  limited  duration  of  future  punishment)  :  Archse- 
logia?  Philos.,  1692,  transl.  by  Foxton,  1729,  etc. — Thomas  Burnet ,  Prebend, 
of  Salisbury,  d.  1750:  The  Demonstration  of  True  Religion  (Bayle’s  Lect., 
1724-5),  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1726  ;  the  Argument  in  Christ,  as  old  as  Creation, 
3  parts,  1730-2.] 

5  [George  Pretyman ,  (his  name  changed  to  Tomline ,  1803),  Bp.  Lincoln, 
b.  1750,  d.  1827  :  Elements  of  Christ.  Theol.,  2  vols.,  2d  ed.  1779,  and 
often  since  ;  Refutation  of  Calvinism,  1811,  etc. — Thos.  Newton ,  Bp.  of 
Bristol,  b.  1704,  d.  1782  ;  Dissertation  on  Prophecies,  10th  ed.,  2  vols., 
1804;  dissertations  on  theol.  topics;  Works,  6  vols.,  1787. — Thos.  Wilson , 
Bp.  of  Sodor  and  Man),  b.  1663,  d.  1755  :  Works,  4th  ed.,  4  vols.,  1796-7  ; 
new  edition  by  Keble ,  in  Angl.  Cath.  Library  ;  on  Lord’s  Supper,  and  Sacra 
Privata,  frequent  editions;  Life  hy  Hugh  Stowell ,  3d  ed.,  1829. —  Thos. 
Stackhouse ,  b.  1680,  d.  1752  :  Complete  Body  of  Div.,  3d  ed.  fob,  1755  ; 
Apostles’  Creed,  1747 ;  New  Hist,  of  Bible,  6  vols.,  1767,  3,  4 to,  ed.  Gleig, 
1817; 4  on  Woolston,  1760. — Philip  Skelton ,  see  §  276,  p.  385. —  Wm. 
Worthington,  b.  1703,  d.  1778  ;  Essay  on  Redemption,  1743  ;  Boyle  Lects., 
1766-8,  on  Evidence  of  Christ  (as  growing),  2  vols.,  1769  ;  Script.  Theory 
of  the  Earth  (anon.),  1773. — Sami.  Halifax ,  Bp.  St.  Asaph,  b.  1733,  d.  1790, 
On  Justification,  2d  ed.,  1762  ;  on  Prophecy,  1776. — John  Rotheram ,  Rector 
of  Hough tonde-Spring,  d.  1788,  Apology  for  Athanasian  Creed;  Essay  on 
Human  Liberty,  1782  ;  Argument  for  Prophecy  (against  Middleton),  Oxf., 
1753. — Samuel  Horsley,  Bp. '  St.  Asaph,  b.  1733,  d.  1806  :  Collected  Works, 
6  vols.  1845;  Tracts  in  Controversy  with  Dr.  Priestley,  3d  ed.,  1812;  ed. 
Newton’s  Works,  5  vols.,  1779-85  ;  Biblical  Criticisms.  See  Allibonds  Diet, 
i.  894. — Richard  Hurd,  Bp.  Worcester,  b.  1720,  d.  1808  ;  Works,  8  vols., 
1811,  chiefly  literary  criticism. — Richard  Watson,  Bp.  Llandaff,  b.  1737, 
d.  1816:  Apology  for  Bible,  against  Paine,  2d  ed.,  1796;  Collection  of 
Theol.  Tracts,  6  vols.,  1791  ;  Miscel.  Tracts,  2  vols.,  1815. —  Thos.  Burgess , 
Bp.  Salisbury,  b.  1756,  d.  1837  :  First  Principles,  1804  ;  Origin  and  Inde¬ 
pendence  of  Ancient  Brit.  Church,  2d  ed.,  1815  ;  English  Ref.  and  Papal- 
Schism,  1829  ;  Tracts  on  Div.  of  Christ  (see  note  13  of  previous  section) ; 
Life  bj^  Harford,  2d  ed.,  1841. —  William  Van  Milder t,  Bp.  of  Durham,  b. 
1765,  d.  1836  :  Theol.  Works,  6  vols.,  Oxf.,  1838  ;  Boyle  Lect.  on  Progress 
of  Infidelity,  2  vols.;  Bampton  Lectures  on  Religious  Controversy,  1814; 
Sermons. — Richard  Mant,  Bp.  Down,  b.  1776,  d.  1849  :  Appeal  to  Gospel 
(against  the  charges  of  Methodists),  Bampton  Lect.,  1812;  Churches  of 
Rome  and  England,  1837 ;  Hist.  Chh.  Ireland,  1840  ;  Horse  Liturgicae, 
1845.] 

6  [  William  Warburton,  Bp.  of  Gloucester,  see  ante,  p.  384  ;  besides  the 
works  there  mentioned,  he  wrote  Alliance  between  Church  and  State 
(Works,  vol.  7);  Doctrine  of  Holy  Spirit  (in  vol.  6);  Critical  and  Philos. 
Commentary  on  Pope’s  Essay  on  Man.] 

7  [John  Hey,  b.  1754,  Norrisan  Prof.  Div.,  Camb.,  1780,  d.  1815  (“  acute, 
impartial,  and  judicious ;”  Kaye ) :  Lectures  on  Divinity,' 4  vols.,  1796,  3d  ed. 
Turton,  2,.1&41 ;  Essay  on  Redemption;  Thoughts  on  Athanasian  Creed, 


§  2 85,  a .  Theology  in  England. 


419 


J  790. —  William  Paley,  Arclid.  of  Carlisle,  see  ante,  p.  384.  His  Natural 
Theology  illustrated  by  Brougham  and  Bell ,  5  vols.,  1835-39.  His  selfish 
theory  of  morals  opposed  by  Mackintosh,  Stewart,  Coleridge,  Whewell,  and 
most  of  the  later  English  moralists. — John  Taylor ,  of  Norwich,  a  Unitarian 
divine,  b.  1694,  d.  1761  ;  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  1738,  4th  ed., 
with  Reply  to  Wesley,  1767  ;  Paraphrase  to  Epistle  to  Romans,  3d  ed., 
1754;  Script.  Doctrine  of  Atonement,  1753  ;  Hebrew  Concordance,  after 
JBuxtorf, \  2  fob  Norwich,  1754-7.] 

8  \William  Law ,  a  non-juror  and  mystic,  b.  1686,  d.  1761 :  Works,  9  vols., 
1762.  His  Three  Letters  to  the  Bishop  of  Bangor  ( Hoadly )  are  famed  in  con¬ 
troversial  literature  for  wit  and  argument.  Remarks  on  Mandeville’s  Fable 
of  Bees,  3d,  1762;  Case  of  Reason  (against  TindaT)\  Practical  Treatise  on 
Christ.  Perfection,  5th  ed.,  1759  ;  Grounds  and  Reasons  of  Christ.  Regen er- . 
ation,  7th  ed.,  1773;  Serious  Call,  1st  ed.,  1729,  often  republished;  in  the 
deistic  controversy,  reply  to  Dr.  Trapp,  4th  ed.,  1772,  etc.  ;  he  prepared  in 
part  an  edition  of  Behmen’s  works,  1764-81,  and  published  on  them,  The 
Way  to  Divine  Knowledge,  2d  ed.,  1762. — Edmund  Law ,  Bp.  Carlisle,  b. 

1703,  d.  1787  :  Considerations  on  the  Theory  of  Religion,  1745,  new  ed. 
by  G.  H.  Law ,  Lond.,  1820  ;  Inquiry  into  the  Ideas  of  Space,  Time,  etc.,  in 
Answer  to  Jackson,  1734  ;  he  also  transl.  King  on  Origin  of  Evil. —  William 
Jones ,  of  Nayland,  b.  1726,  d.  1800  (“had  the  talent  of  writing  upon  the 
deepest  subjects  to  the  plainest  understandings ;”  Horsley)  ;  Theol.  and 
Miscel.  Works,  6  vols.,  1810,  1826  ;  The  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity; 
Figurative  Language  of  Scriptures  ;  Essay  on  the  Church.] 

\William  Newcome ,  Abp.  Armagh,  b.  1729,  d.  1800:  Harmony  of 
Gospels,  1798,  1802,  ed.  by  M.  Stuart ,  Andover,  1814  ;  Ezekiel  and  Minor 
Prophets,  1836;  Eng.  Bible  Translations,  1792. — Samuel  Parker ,  Bibl. 
Biblica,  5  fol.  on  Pent.,  Oxf.,  1720,  sq. — Richard  Pococke ,  Bp.  of  Meath,  b. 

1704,  d.  1765:  Description  of  the  East,  2  fob,  1743-5;  Inscript.  Antiq. 
liber.,  1752. —  William  Romaine ,  Calasio’s  Concordance,  4  vols.,  1747 
(Hutchinsonian). — Robert  Ldwth ,  Bp.  London,  b.  1710,  d.  1787  :  Isaiah, 
new  transh,  13th  ed.,  1842  ;  De  Sacri  Poesi  Hebraeorum  Prselectiones,  with 
Notes  of  Michaelis  and  Rosenmtiller,  Oxf.,  1821,  transl.  by  G.  Gregory , 

2  vols.  1787,  Boston,  1815,  new  ed.,  with  notes  of  C.  E.  Stowe ,  Andov., 
1829;  Sermons;  Letter  to  Warburton,  2d  ed.,  1766. — Benj.  Kennicott,b. 
1718,  d.  1783  :  State  of  Hebrew  Text,  2,  Oxf.,  1753-9;  Two  Diss.  on  Tree 
of  Life,  etc.,  2d  ed.,  1747  ;  Collection  of  Hebr.  MS.,  1770;  Diss.  in  Yet. 
Test.  Hebr.,  1780,  etc. — George  Horne,  Bp.  Norwich,  b.  1730,  d.  1792. 
Works,  4  vols.,  ed.  by  Wm.  Jones,  Lond.,  1809  ;  Comm,  on  Psalms,  fre¬ 
quent  editions;  Letter  on  Behmen,  and  Cautions  to  Law  (Works,  i.  216, 
sq.) ;  Discourses.  He  favored  the  views  of  Hutchinson  (see  next  note). — 
Benj.  Boothroyd  (Independent),  minister  at  Huddersfield,  d.  1836  :  Family 
Bible  and  Improved  Version,  3,  4to,  1824  ;  Biblia  Hebraica. — Critical  Comm, 
and  Paraphrase  on  Old  and  New  Test,  and  Apocrypha,  by  Patrick,  Lowth, 
Arnold,  Whitby,  and  Laeman ;  new  ed.  by  Pitman,  6  vols.,  1822. — Geo. 
H  Oyly  and  R.  Mant,  Notes,  etc.,  Lond.,  1845,  3  vols.,  8vo. — John  Park- 
hurst  (Hutchinsonian),  b.  1728,  d.  1797  :  Greek  and  English  Lexicon,  1798, 
often  repr.,  1851 ;  Hebr.  and  Eng.  Lex.,  1792,  ed.  Rose,  1829,  Major,  1843. 


420 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


— Herbert  Marsh,  Bp.  Peterborough,  b.  1757,  d.  1839:  Authenticity  of 
the  First  Boots  of  Moses,  1792;  Lects.  on  Criticism  and  Interpretation, 
1838 ;  on  Authenticity  of  N.  Test.,  1840  ;  Comp.  View  of  the  Churches  of 
England  and  Rome,  1814,  1816  ;  translation  of  Michaelis ,  Introd.,  4  vols. 
in  6,  1802. — On  Thos.  Scott ,  see  note  11,  on  Doddridge  and  Gill,  note  12.] 

10  [ John  Hutchinson ,  b.  1674,  d.  1737  :  Philosophical  and  Theol.  Worts, 
12  vols.,  Lond.,  1749;  Moses’ Principia ;  Glory  or  Gravity,  etc.)  He  op¬ 
posed  the  Newtonian  system.  Among  his  followers  were  Bishop  Horne, 
ParJchurst,  Romaine,  and  Jones  of  Nayland.  See  Horne,  Worts,  vol. '6, 
p.  113,  sq .,  on  the  State  of  the  Case  between  Sir  Isaac  Newton  and  Mr. 
Hutchinson;  and  Jones  of  Nayland,  in  Preface  to  Life  of  Bp.  Horne.  Their 
leading  principle  was,  that  ideas  in  divinity  are  formed  from  the  ideas  in  na¬ 
ture  ;  the  Trinity  is  to  be  conveyed  to  the  understanding  by  ideas  of  sense  ; 
the  Cherubim  represent  humanity  united  to  Deity,  etc.  Robert  Spearman , 
publ.  an  Abstract  of  Hutchinson’s  Works,  Edinb.,  1755  ;  and  a  Supplement, 
1765.  Julius  Hate ,  Defence  of  H.,  1751.] 

11  [ Augustus  Montague  Toplady,  b.  1740,  d.  1778  :  Works,  6  vols.,  1794, 
1825  ;  in  one  vol.  1853  (a  strenuous  Calvinist) ;  Historic  Proof  of  Doctrinal 
Calvinism  of  Church  of  England  (vol.  i.  ii.) ;  Church  of  Eng.  vindicated 
from  the  Charge  of  Arminianism ;  Doctrine  of  Predestination  (vol.  v.)  , 
Scheme  of  Necessity  against  Wesley  (vol.  vi.) — Thos.  Scott,  b.  1747,  d. 
1821:  Holy  Bible  with  Notes,  frequent  editions;  Works,  ed.  John  Scott, 
10  vols.,  1823;  Force  of  Truth  ;  Essays;  Sermons;  Synod  of  Dort,  etc. ; 
Evangelical  Doctrines  stated  and  defended  in  Remarks  on  Bp.  of  Winches¬ 
ter’s  ( Tomline )  Refutation  of  Calvinism  (Works,  vol.  vii.  viii.)  His  son, 
John  Scott  (d.  1834)  published,  Inquiry  into  Effect  of  Baptism,  against  Bp. 
Mant,  2d  ed.,  1817,  and  against  Laurence,  1817.  (See  above  §  225,  b, 
note  2,  p.  184.  See  on  this  subject  the  works  of  Tomline  and  Laurence,  and 
Ed.  Williams  (note  12).  Bp.  Herbert  Marsh  was  also  a  strenuous  opponent  of 
Calvinism.  Thos.  Edwards  (Arminian),  b.  1729,  d.  1785,  vicar  of  Nuneaton, 
on  Irresistible  Grace,  Cambr.,  1759. — John  H.  Hinton,  Moderate  Calvinism 
reexamined,  Lond.  1861.  Whately's  Difficulties  in  the  Writings  of  St, 
Paul  (Essays,  2d  series,  5th  ed.,  1845).  Copleston  on  Predestination  and 
Necessity,  1821.] 

12  [ Thos .  Ridgeley,  see  above  §  225,  b ,  p.  191.  Lsaac  Watts,  b.  1674,  d. 
1748:  Works,  9  vols.,  Lond.,  1812.  Sermons;  Rational  Order  of  Christ. 
Church ;  Doctrines  of  Trinity  ;  Glory  of  God  as  Christ-Man  (he  held  the 
preexistence  of  Christ’s  human  soul,  as  did  Fleming  and  T.  Goodwin) ;  Im¬ 
provement  of  the  Mind,  etc. — Philip  Doddridge,  b.  1702,  d.  1751.  Family 
Expositor,  .numerous  editions;  Works,  10  vols.,  1802;  Course  of  Lectures 
on  Pneumatology,  Ethics  and  Divinity  (Works  iv.) ;  Sermons ;  Life  and 
Corresp.,  5  vols.,  Lond.,  1831. — John  Gill  (Baptist),  b.  1697,  d.  1771  : 
Expos.  O.  and  New  Test.,  9  vols.,  4 to,  Lond.,  1810  ;  Solomon’s  Song,  fob, 
1728;  Complete  Body  of  Divinity,  2,  1839  ;  Cause  of  God  and  Truth,  new 
ed.,  1838,  etc. — Edward  Williams,  b.  1730,  taught  in  Indep.  Academy  of 
Rotheram  from  1795,  d.  1813  :  Defence  of  Modern  Calvinism  (against  Torn, 
line)  1812  ;  Essay  on  Divine  Government,  2d  ed.,  1813,  omitting  the  exam 


§  2 85,  a.  Theology  in  England. 


421 


mation  of  Whitby  and  Fletcher;  Christian  Preacher,  5th  ed.,  1843  ;  edited 
Doddridge  and  Jonathan  Edwards,  and  abridged  Owen  on  Hebrews.] 

13  [Joseph  Priestley ,  b.  1733,  in  America  1794,  d.  1804,  a  voluminous 
writer  on  political,  philosophical. and  religious  topics.  Correspondence  with 
Price  on  Materialism,  1778  ;  Examination  of  Reid’s  Inquiry,  1775  ;  Insti¬ 
tutes  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion,  2  vols.,  2d  ed.,  1782  ;  Letters  to  a 
Phil.  Unbeliever  (on  Hume  and  Gibbon),  1747  ;  Hist,  of  Church,  6  vols., 
1790-1803.  His  History  of  Corruption  of  Christ,  2  vols.,  1782,  and  Hist, 
of  Early  Opinions  concerning  Jesus  Christ,  4,  1786,  led  to  Horsley’s  Charge, 
etc.  (see  note  5);  Tracts  in  Controversy  with  Horsley,  1783-6,  reprinted 
1815.  Memoirs  to  1795  written  by  himself,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1806-7. — Na¬ 
thaniel  Lardner,  b.  1684,  d.  1768:  Works,  11  vols.,  Credibility  of  Gospel 
Hist.  (17  vols.,  Lond.,  1727—57) ;  Collection  of  Ancient  Jewish  and  Heathen 
Testimonies  (4  vols.,  1764-7);  Hist,  of  Heretics  from  MS.  (1780);  Two 
Schemes  of  a  Trinity  considered  (Works,  x.)  ;  on  the  Logos  in  Place  of  the 
Human  Soul  of  Christ  (vol.  xi.) — Theophilus  Lindsey ,  b.  1723,  d.  1808  : 
Apology,  1774,  Sequel,  1776  ;  Histl.  View  of  State  of  Unit.  Doctrine  from 
Reformation,  1783  ;  Vindiciae  Priestlieanae,  1788  ;  Memoirs  by  j Belsham, 
1812. — Thos.  Belsham ,  b.  1730,  d.  1809  :  Calm  Inquiry  into  Script.  Doc¬ 
trine  Concerning  the  Person  of  Christ  (and  review  of  Priestley  and  Horsley), 
1811;  Epistles  of  Paul,  2  vols.,  4to,  1822  ;  Appendix  of  Extracts  from 
divines  of  Church  of  England,  1824. — Memoirs  by  John  Williams ,  1833. 
New  Version  of  New  Test,  chiefly  by  Belsham.  (Comp.  Magee  on  Sacri¬ 
fice,  ed.  of  1842,  vol.  2,  pp.  74-311  on  this  Version ;  Abp.  Laurence ,  Crit¬ 
ical  Reflections,  1811  ;  Edward  Nares ,  Prof.  Hist.  Oxf.,  d.  1811,  Remarks 
on  the  Version,  2d  ed.,  1814. — Lant  Carpenter ,  b.  1780,  d.  1840  :  Exami¬ 
nation  of  the  charges  against  Unitarians,  and  the  Improved  Version  by  Bp. 
Magee,  with  Strictures  on  Bp.  Burgess,  Drs.  Hales,  Graves,  Nares,  Pye  Smith, 
Rennel,  etc.,  Bristol,  1820;  he  also  wrote  on  the  Atonement,  1843  ;  Har¬ 
mony  of  Gospels,  2d  ed.,  1838,  etc. — John  Jebb ,  M.  D.,  b.  1736,  d.  1786. 
Works  by  Disney ,  3  vols.,  1787. —  Caleb  Fleming ,  1698,  d.  1779  :  a  Soci- 
nian,  he  wrote  against  Bolingbroke  and  Chubb ,  and  in  favor  of  psedo-baptism. 
— Jos.  Bretland ,  Unit.,  b.  1742,  d.  1819  :  Sermons,  2  vols.,  1820. — Abra¬ 
ham  Pees ,  d.  1825,  Sermons,  4,  1809. — John  Disney ,  b.  1746,  d.  1816  : 
Letters  to  Dr.  V.  Knox ,  on  Unit.  Christians  ;  Remarks  on  [ Tomline’s ]  Charge, 
1812;  Sermons,  4,  1793-1818. — Richard  Price ,  b.  1723,  d.  1791:  Four 
Diss.  on  Provid.,  Christianity,  etc.,  3d  ed.,  1772  ;  on  Civil  Liberty,  9th  ed., 
1776;  Sermons  on  Christ.  Doctrine,  1787. — (On  the  controversy  as  to 
1  John  v.  7,  see  the  treatise  of  Sir  Ls.  Newton,  1754;  Bp.  Burgess,  Tracts  on 
Div.  of  Christ,  1820,  and  Selection  of  Tracts  on  1  John,  v.  7,  1824  ;  G. 
Travis ,  Letters  to  Gibbon,  in  defence,  3d  ed.,  1794  ;  R.  Porson,  Letters  to 
Archd.  Travis,  1795  ;  Bp.  Marsh,  Letters  to  Travis,  1795  ;  W.  Hales,  in  his 
Faith  in  the  Trinity,  2,  133,  sq. ;  Cardinal  Wiseman,  in  his  Essays,  vol.  1. — 
For  the  literature  of  the  controversy,  see  Darling's  Cyclop.  Bibl.  Subjects; 
Holy  Scriptures,  pp.  1718-23.) — On  John  Pye  Smith's  works  in  reply  to 
Belsham  and  others,  see  the  next  section,  note  24.  William  Magee,  Abp. 
of  Dublin  (b.  1763,  d.  1831),  Dissertation  on  Atonement  and  Sacrifice 
(with  Appendix  on  Mr.  Belsham),  new  ed.  2,  1842. — During  the  present 


422  Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 

century,  the  controversy  has  been  continued  between  Wardlaw  and  Yates  : 
Yates ,  Vindication  of  TJnitarianism,  4th  ed.,  1850  ;  Sequel  to  Vind.,  2d  ed., 
1822  :  Wardlaw ,  Discourses  on  Principal  Points  of  the  Socinian  Contro¬ 
versy,  2d  ed.,  1815  ;  TJnitarianism  Incapable  of  Vindication,  1816  (Ando¬ 
ver,  1817). — Edward  Burton,  of  Oxford:  Testimonies  of  Anti-Nicene 
Fathers  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  2d  ed.,  1829  ;  ibid.,  Testimony  to  Trinity 
and  Divinity  of  Holy  Ghost,  1831. —  William  Hales ,  Faith  in  the  Holy 
Trinity,  2d  ed.,  2,  1818. —  G.  S.  Faber ,  Apostolicity  of  Trinitarianism,  2 
vols.,  1832. — John  Oxlee ,  Trinity  and  Incarnation  (Jewish  sources),  3  vols., 
1817-30. — The  leading  English  Unitarians  of  the  present  century  arc  James 
Martineau  (Essays  and  Reviews,  Miscellanies,  etc.)  ;  J.  R.  Beard  (V oices  of 
the  Church,  in  reply  to  Strauss,  1845;  Rationalism  in  Germany;  Historic 
and  Artistic  Illustrations  of  the  Trinity,  1846  ;  Unitarianism  in  its  Actual 
Condition,  1849)  ;  J.  H.  Thom,  Commentaries,  etc.] 

14  [Many  Presbyterian  churches  became  Unitarian  (170  of  the  Unitarian 

chapels  were  originally  orthodox).  At  the  Salter’s  Hall  Meeting,  57  of  110 
ministers  were  against  ail  creeds.  The  Feathers ’  Tavern  Association,  was 
for  the  abolitiou  of  subscription  (particular  objection  to  the  damnatory 
clause  in  the  Athanasian  Creed)  ;  three  hundred  clergy,  led  by  Gilbert 
Wakefield  (d.  1801).  See  also  Archd.  Hlackburne  (b.  1705,  d.  1787)  :  The 
Confessional,  1766  (anon,  reprinted  in  his  works,  vol.  5  ;  in  vols.  6  and  7, 
tracts  on  the  same  subject).  Comp.  Doubts  on  the  Authenticity  of  the  last 
Publication  of  the  Confessional,  1768;  Short  View  of  the  Controversy,  2d 
ed.,  1775. — Complete  and  Faithful  Account  of.  the  Papers  publ.  at  Oxford 
on  Subscription,  1772.  Paley,  Defence  of  the  Considerations  on  the  Pro¬ 
priety  of  requiring  Subscription,  in  Reply  to  a  late  Answer  :  \V orks,  vol. 
iv.  431,  s<7.]  f 

15  [David  Hartley,  b.  1705,  d.  1757  :  Observations  on  Man,  etc.,  2  vols., 
1749 ;  3  vols.,  1791,  ed.  by  Priestley,  1801 ;  translated  in  German  by  Pistorius. 
Comp.  [Priestley)  Hartley’s  Theory,  1790  ;  and  Jos.  Berington,  Letter  on 
Hartley,  1776.  See  above  the  works  of  Reid,  Dugald  Stewart,  Cousin,  and 
Morell. — Abraham  Tucker,  b.  1705,  d.  1774.  Light  of  Nature  (by  Edward, 
Search);  best  ed.  7  vols.,  1805,  repr.  in  2  vols.,  1837.  On  Priestley,  see 
note  13,  above.] 

16  [ George  Berkeley  (see  §  285,  a,  note  16,  and  §  276,  p.  384),  Bp.  of 
Cloyne,  b.  1684,  d.  1733:  Essay  towards  a  new  Theory  of  Vision,  1709; 
Vindication,  1733  (see  Bailey’s  Review  of  same,  Lond.,  1842.  New  ed.  by 
Cowell,  1860.  Comp.  Mill,  in  Westminster  Rev.,  38,  39).  Comp,  also 
Blackwood’s  Magazine,  Oct.,  1841,  June,  1842,  June,  1843,  May  and  Aug., 
1847.] 

17  [See  ante,  p.  227.  On  the  influence  of  his  Sermons  upon  the  ethical 
speculation  of  England,  see  Mackintosh ,  Diss.  on  Progress  of  Ethical  Philos., 
Section  VI.] 

18  [ Richard  Price  (see  note  13)  Review  of  Principal  Question  in  Morals, 
1758,  3d  ed.,  1787.  This  was  an  attempt  to  revive  the  more  Platonic 
theory  of  morals ;  tUe  idea  of  right  as  simple  and  nndefinable.] 


§  285,  b.  Theology  in  England. 


423 


§  285,  b. 

[ENGLISH  THEOLOGY  AND  PHILOSOPHY  IN  THE  PRESENT  CENTURY.] 

[Though  England  did  not  directly  participate  in  the  speculative 
movement  of  the  German  schools,  yet  the  philosophy  of  Locke  and 
the  ethics  of  Paley  gradually  lost  their  influence.1  Here  as  in  Scot¬ 
land,  the  scepticism  of  Hume,  was  supplanted  by  the  philosophy  of 
common  sense  (see  §  285,  c).  Utilitarianism  was  also  carried  to  its  ex¬ 
treme  positions  in  the  system  of  Jeremy  Bentham ;2  and  the  inductive 
:  philosophy  is  made  supreme  in  the  works  of  James  and  John  Stuart 
Mill*  the  latter  in  harmony  with  Comte.*  Samuel  Taylor  Cole¬ 
ridge, 5  was  the  prophet,  rather  than  the  systematic  expounder  of  a 
more  spiritual  philosophy.  Ho  one  system  can  he  said  to  have 
ascendency  in  England  ;  but  there  are  favorable  representatives  of 
various  philosophical  tendencies.6] 

[The  revival  of  theology  began  rather  in  the  sphere  of  practical 
piety,  than  in  that  of  abstract  speculation.  Stimulated  by  the  zeal 
of  the  Wesleys  and  Wliitefield  (see  §  278),  whose  evangelical  Ar- 
minianism  was  in  striking  contrast  with  the  ethical  Arminianism  of 
the  established  Church, — the  Evangelical  or  Low  Church  party 
rapidly  increased  in  influence  during  the  first  quarter  of  the  cen¬ 
tury.7  It  was  comparatively  indifferent  to  the  sacramental  theory 
and  the  apostolical  succession,  and  devoted  to  spiritual  piety  and 
evangelical  works.  But  a  strong  reaction  commenced,  nearly  coeval 
s  with  the  passage  of  the  Reform  Bill  (1832).  The  advocates  of  High 
V Church  principles  rallied  with  new  vigor  in  the  so-called  Oxford 
School  (Tracts  for  the  Times)8  represented  by  Pusey ,9  Newman f 
Fronde ,  Keble ,  Wilberforce  and  others,11  many  of  whom  at  last, 
went  over  to  the  Roman  Catholic  communion.12  The  Hampden 
Controversy ,13  the  Gorham  Case,1*  the  Denison  Case,1*  and  the  Forbes 
Case 16  in  Scotland,  are  all  connected  with  this  movement.  Be¬ 
sides  the  Evangelical  and  the  Oxford  Schools,  there  is  a  large  class 
of  liberal  Anglican  divines,  represented  by  Copleston,11  Archbishop 
Whately ,18  Dean  Milman,  Dean  Trench,  Burton,  Wordsworth  and 
others  ;19  still  greater  freedom  is  claimed,  with  a  more  liberal  appli¬ 
cation  of  philosophy  to  theology,  by  the  so  called  Broad  Church.20 
The  progress  of  biblical  science  is  exemplified  in  the  works  of  Lee, 
Kitto,  Tregelles,  Davidson,  Trench,  Bloomfield,  Wordsworth,  Elli- 
cott,  Jowett,  Alford  and  others.21 — The  Baptists  have  for  the  most 
part  ceased  to  sympathize  with  their  earlier  Antinomianism,22  and  are 
represented  in  a  freer  spirit  by  Byland,  Fuller ,  Foster  and  Hall.™ 
The  Independents  have  united  an  orthodox  theology  with  a  spirit  of 
theologic  inquiry,  as  is  illustrated  in  the  writings  of  John  Pye  Smithy 


424 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


George  Payne ,  John  Harris ,  P.  Vaughan  and  others.24 — The  con¬ 
flict  of  Christianity  with  Infidelity  has  called  forth  a  series  of  works25 
upon  the  Evidences,  and  on  Natural  Religion.  In  the  recent  (Ox¬ 
ford)  Essays  and  Reviews™  the  arguments  for  the  Evidences  of 
Christianity,  and  for  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
are  seriously  impugned.  In  ManseVs  Bampton  Lectures  (1858),  on 
the  Limits  of  Religious  Thought, 2T  all  positive  thought  is  excluded 
from  the  sphere  of  the  supernatural.] 

1  [See  Sedgwick's  Discourse,  5th  ed.,  pp;  162  sq.,  criticising  Paley’s  defi¬ 
nition  of  Virtue,  viz.,  “  the  doing  good  to  mankind  in  obedience  to  the  will 
of  God,  for  the  sake  of  everlasting  happiness,”  and  especially  his  statement, 
that  “  pleasures  differ  in  nothing  but  in  continuance  and  in  intensity.”  See 
also  Mackintosh's  Preliminary  Dissertation,  and  WhewelVs  History  of  Moral 
Philosophy.  On  Locke  see  Cousin's  Psychology,  trans.  by  C.  S.  Henry ,  4th 
ed.,  1856.] 

2  [« Jeremy  Bentham ,  b.  1841,  d.  1832  :  Fragment  on  Government,  1776  ; 
Morale  and  Legislation,  (1780)  1789  ;  Theory  of  Legisl.  (from  French  of 
Dumont ,  transl.  by  R.  Hildreth ,  2  vols.,  Brist.,  1840) ;  Deontology  by  Bow- 
ring ,  1834  (see  Edb.  Rev.,  61) ;  Chrestomathia,  1817  ;  Works,  11  vols.,  Edinb., 
1843.  In  his  Church  of  England  and  its  Catechism,  1818,  and  his  Not  Paul 
but  Jesus,  he  made  an  open  attack  on  Christianity.  (See  Quart.  Rev., 
1818,  and  Rose's  Critical  Exam.,  1819.)  Comp,  the  articles  of  Mill  on  Ban- 
tham,  in  Westminster  Rev.,  July,  1838,  and  Oct.,  1852.] 

3  [James  Mill ,  Analysis  of  the  Phenomena  of  Human  Mind,  1829  (see 
MorelVs  History  of  Phil.,  p.  237  sq.).  John  Stuart  Mill ,  Diss.  and  Discuss., 
2  vols.;  Pol.  Econ. ;  System  of  Logic,  2  vols.,  1842  (New  York,  one  vol.) ; 
new  ed.,  1858.  Comp.  Whewell  in  Philos,  of  Inductive  Sciences;  North 
Am.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1845  ;  Christ.  Examiner,  May,  1846  ;  New  Englander,  May, 
1850  ;  Princeton  Review,  Jan.,  1856.  The  Westminster  Review,  since  1834, 
is  the  organ  of  this  school.  G.  H  Lewes ,  in  his  Biog.  Hist,  of  Philos, 
(repr.  New  York,  1857),  represents  the  same  tendency.] 

4  [Auguste  Comte ,  a  French  philosopher,  b.  1798,  d.  1857  :  Cours  de 
Philosophic  Positive,  6  Tom.,  1830— ’42  ;  Systeme  de  Politique  Positive,  4, 
1851-2.  Positive  Philos,  of  Comte,  by  Harriet  Martineau ,  New  York,  1854  ; 
Philos,  of  Sciences,  ed.  Lewes ,  1853.  Comp.  Meth.  Quart.  Rev.,  1852  sq. ; 
Brit.  Quart.,  April,  1854,  and  Oct.,  1858  ;  North  British,  May,  1854  ; 
N^rth  Am.  Rev.,  July,  1854;  Presb.  Quart.,  Sept.,  1857;  Christ.  Exam., 
July,  1857.  Comte’s  inductive  and  materialistic  theory  is  also  at  the  basis 
of  Buckle's  Hist,  of  Civilization,  vols.,  1,  2,  1859-61.  See  §  285,  note  11.] 

6  [Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge,  b.  1772,  d.  1834:  The  Friend,  1812; 
Statesman’s  Manual,  1816  ;  Biographia  Literaria,  2  vols.,  1817  (Schelling)  ; 
Aids  to  Reflection,  1825  ;  Constitution  of  Church  and  State,  1830  ;  Life  by 
Gillman ,  vol.  1,  1838.  New  edition  of  his  works,  edited  by  H.  H.  and 
Sara  Coleridge ,  1844-9  ;  Literary  Remains,  4  vols.,  1836-9  ;  Prof.  Shedd's 
edition,  7  vols.,  New  York,  1854.  Comp.  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  iv. ;  Princeton 
Rev.,  1848;  Church  Rev.,  1854  ;  Brit.  Quart.,  Jan.,  1854;  Christ.  Rev., 


§  285,  b.  Theology  in  England. 


425 


July,  1854;  Remusat  in  Revue  cl.  deux  Mondes,  Oct.,  1856  ;  Eclectic  Rev., 
(Loud.)  4th  s.,  vol.  29,  reprinted  separately.  His  Friend,  and  Aids  to  Reflection 
were  republished  by  Pres.  Marsh,  Burlington,  1831  sq.,  with  a  preliminary 
Essay.  His  Theory  of  the  Reason,  and  of  the  Will,  are  the  main  points  iu 
Coleridge’s  system.] 

[  W.  Whewell ,  Hist,  and  Philos,  of  Inductive  Sciences,  5  vols.,  1837-40  ; 
new  edition,  1857  ;  Elements  of  Morality,  1845-8,  repr.  New  York.  Lect. 
on  Systematic  Morality,  1846  ;  Moral  Phil,  in  England,  1852.  Herbert 
Spencer  (of  the  inductive  .school) ;  Psychology,  1855;  Essays,  1857;  pro¬ 
posed  series  on  the  philosophical  sciences. — J.  D.  Morell  (eclectic),  History 
of  Modern  Philosophy  ;  Philos,  of  Religion,  1849  ;  Psychology,  Part  1,  1853. 
— Alexander  Bain ,  The  Emotions  and  Will,  1859  ;  Senses  and  Intellect, 
1855. — Isaac  Taylor ,  World  of  Mind,  1855. — Henry  L.  Mansel ,  Prolego¬ 
mena  Logica,  2d  ed.,  1859,  Bost.,  1860  ;  Metaphysics,  or  the  Philos,  of  Con¬ 
sciousness,  from  the  Encycl.  Britan.,  Edinb.,  1860. — John  H.  Macmahon , 
A  Treatise  on  Metaphysics,  chiefly  in  reference  to  Revealed  Religion,  Lond., 
1860. —  Wm.  Archer  Butler ,  b.  1814,  d.  1848;  Lects.  on  Development  of 
Christ.  Doctrine,  ed.  Woodward ,  1850;  on  Ancient  Philos.,  2  vols.,  repr. 
Phil.,  1858;  Sermons.] 

7  [On  the  Wesleyan  movement,  see  above,  §  278.  On  the  division 
between  White  field  and  Wesley,  see  Stevens'  History  of  Methodism,  ubi 
supra.  On  the  Wesleyan  controversy  as  to  Antinomianism  and  justification 
(1770),  ibid.  Charles  Wesley,  b.  1708,  d.  1778  ;  Sermons;  Life  and  Times 
by  T.  Jackson,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1841.  Among  the  Calvinistic  Methodists 
was  Wm.  Huntington ,  S.  S.  (i.  e.  Sinner  Saved),  b.  1744,  d.  1813  ;  Works, 
2  vols.,  1820,  6  vols.,  1856;  comp.  Southey,  in  Quart.  Rev.,  xiv.  The 
Lady  Huntingdon  Connection  (England  and  Wales,  in  1795  numbered  about 
100,000),  grew  up  in  this  movement;  see  Mem.  of  Selina  Huntingdon,  (b. 
1707,  d.  1791),  2,  1840.  Representatives  of  the  Evangelical  Party;  Charles 
Simeon,  b.  1759,  d.  1836;  Horse  Homiletics,  21  vols.,  1840,  Memoirs  by 
Cams,  1847.  Henry  Venn ,  b.  1725,  d.  1797,  Sermons,  Complete  Duty  of 
Man,  etc.  William  Wilberforce,  the  Statesman,  b.  1759,  d.  1833  ;  Practi¬ 
cal  View  (frequent  editions)  ;  Life,  5  vols.,  1839.  Hannah  More,  b.  1745, 
d.  1833;  Works,  11  vols.,  1830  (repr.  New  York).  Richard  Cecil,  b.  1748, 
d.  1810  ;  Works  and  Mem.,  4  vols.,  1811.  John  Newton,  of  Olney,  b.  1725, 
d.  1807;  Works,  2d  ed.,  1816.  William  Romaine,  b.  1 714,  d.  1795; 
Life  of  Faith  ;  Works,  8  vols.,  1796.  William  Cowper,  the  poet,  b.  1731, 
d.  1800  ;  Life  and  Works  by  Southey,  15  vols.,  1836,  ’7.  John  Jebb,  Bp. 
Limerick,  b.  1775,  d.  1833  ;  Practical  Theol.,  2d  ed.,  2  vols.,  1837  ;  Sacred 
Lit.,  new  ed.,  1831.  Reginald  Heber ,  Bp.  Calcutta,  b.  1783,  d.  1826  ; 
Hymns,  Sermons,  Narrative,  etc.;  Life,  2,  1830.  Daniel  Wilson ,  Bp.  Cal¬ 
cutta,  d.  1858  ;  Evidences  of  Christ.  4th  ed.,  1841  (repr.  Bost.,  1830)  ;  Lect. 
on  Colossians,  Sermons,  etc.  Edw.  Bickersteth,  b.  1786,  d.  1850  ;  on  Prayer, 
Baptism,  Restoration  of  the  Jews,  etc.  John  Gumming,  (Scotch  Church, 
Lond.)  ;  Apocalyptic  Sketches,  Prophetic  Studies,  etc.  Jas.  Hamilton 
(Scotch  Church,  Lond.) ;  Royal  Preacher,  etc. 

8  [ Tracts  for  the  Times,  by  Members  of  the  University  of  Oxford,  6  vols., 
1833-40,  90  in  number.  They  declared  that  the  Church  of  England  was 


426 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


not  Protestant,  and  advocated  (1.)  Apostolical  Succession  ;  (2.)  Sacramental 
Grace  (baptismal  regeneration  and  the  eucharistic  sacrifice)  ;  (3.)  Independ¬ 
ence  of  Church  upon  State  ;  (4.)  Episcopal  and  Church  authority ;  tradition 
with  the  Scriptures ;  (5.)  Revival  of  certain  ecclesiastical  usages,  e.  g.,  altars 
of  stone,  lights,  private  confession,  etc.  No.  90  by  J.  H.  Newman ,  advo¬ 
cated  subscription  to  the  Article  in  a  non-natnral  sense  ;  condemned  by  the 
Hebdomadal  Board.  Comp.  F.  Oakley ,  Tract  No.  90  examined,  1841  ;  J. 
H.  Newman ,  Letter  to  Bp.  of  Oxf.  on  No.  90  ;  E.  B.  Pusey ,  Articles  in 
Tract  90  reconsidered,  in  a  Letter  to  R.  W.  Jelf.-  Among  the  most  signifi¬ 
cant  of  these  Tracts,  were  Pusey  on  Baptism  (No.  67) ;  Apostol.  Succession 
(74) ;  Reserve  in  communicating  religious  knowledge  (80,  87).  The  Li¬ 
brary  of  Anglo  Catholic  Theology,  containing  reprints  of  works  illustrating 
Anglican  theology ;  and  the  Library  of  Fathers  of  the  Holy  Cath.  Church 
(ed.  by  Pusey ,  Keble  and  Marriott ),  aided  in  this  movement.] 

9  \_E.  B.  Pusey ,  Regins  Prof,  of  Hebr.,  Oxf. ;  Letter  to  Bp.  of  Oxf.,  on 
Tendency  to  Romanism,  4th  ed.,  with  Preface  on  Justification,  1840  ;  To 
Abp.  of  Canterbury,  on  Present  Crisis,  3d  ed.,  1842  ;  Sermons,  1845  ;  Paro¬ 
chial  Serm.,  1848-53  ;  Royal  Supremacy,  1850  ;  Sermon  on  Holy  Eucharist, 
1843  (proceedings  against  him  for  this)  ;  The  Church  of  Eng.  leaves  her 
Children  Free  to  open  their  Griefs,  1850,  with  a  Vindication:  Hist,  of 
Councils,  1858  ;  Minor  Prophets,  Pt.  1,  I860.] 

10  [ John  Henry  Newman  ;  Arians  of  Fourth  Cent.,  1833  ;  Parochial  Ser¬ 
mons,  6  vols.,  1835  sq. ;  Prophetical  Office  of  Church,  2d  ed.,  1838  ;  Justi¬ 
fication,  2d  ed.,  1840;  Chh.  of  Fathers,  2d  ed.,  1842;  Sermons,  1843; 
Essays  on  Miracles,  1843  ;  Essay  on  Development  of  Christ.  Doctrine,  1845 
(comp.  Milman  on  this,  in  Quart.  Rev.,  vol.  77  ;  William  Archer  Butler, 
ubi  supra ;  Maurice  in  Preface  to  his  Lect.  on  Hebrews,  1846  ;  Archd.  Hare , 
in  his  Charge,  1852  :  Palmer's  Doctrine  of  Development  and  Conscience, 
1846  ;  W.  J.  Goode,  on  Theory  of  Development,  1846).  Mr.  Newman  sub¬ 
mitted  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  1845.] 

11  [Richd.  H.  Fronde,  b.  1803,  d.  1836 .  Remains,  4  vols.,  1838  (he  gave 
an  impulse  to  this  whole  movement).  John  Keble ;  Primitive  Tradition,  - 
1839;  Christian  Year,  and  Lyra  Innocentium ;  Psalter  in  English  verse; 
Sermons,  1847  ;  Praelect.  Academ.,  2,  Oxf.,  1844  ;  ed.  Hooker’s  Eccl.  Polity. 
Samuel  Wilberforce,  Bp.  of  Oxf. ;  Charges,  Sermons,  etc.  Henry  Wm.  and 
Robert  Isaac  Wilberforce,  became  Roman  Catholics,  the  latter  wrote  :  Doc¬ 
trine  of  Baptism,  2d  ed.,  1849  ;  Incarnation,  3d  ed.,  1850  ;  Eucharist,  1853  ; 
Sermons  on  New  Birth,  1850.  Wm.  G.  Ward,  (Rom.  Cath.)  ;  Ideal  of 
Christ.  Church,  1844;  Nature  and  Grace,  1860.  Fred.  Oakeley  (R.  C.)  ; 
On  Submitting  to  Cath.  Church,  Sermons,  etc.  F.  W.  Faber  (R.  C.) ;  Tracts 
on  Church  and  Prayer  Book.  Henry  Ed.  Manning,  Archd.  Chichester 
(became  R.  C.)  j  Unity  of  Church,  1842  ;  Sermons,  5  vols. ;  Holy  Baptism, 
1844;  Grounds  of  Faith,  1852.  William  Maskell  (Rom.  Cath.) ;  Monu- 
menta  Ritualia  Eccles.  Anglic.,  3,  1846-7;  Holy  Baptism,  1848;  Absolu¬ 
tion,  1849  ;  Royal  Supremacy,  1850.  W.  E.  Gladstone  ;  The  State  in  its 
Relations  with  the  Church,  2  vols.,  4th  ed.,  1841.  Robert  Owen,  Introd.  to 
Dogmatic  Theol.,  Lond.,  1858.] 

13  \Ward,  Oakley,  Dal gair ns  and  Faber,  became  Rom.  Cath.  in  1815 


§  2 85,  b.  English  Theology  and  Philosophy. 


427 


with  Mr.  Newman.  After  the  Gorham  Case  and  the  papal  aggression  (1851), 
Manning ,  Dodsworth ,  the  two  Wilberforces ,  Scott ,  Allies  and  Maslcell ,  also 
seceded;  the  Christ.  Remembrancer,  1860,  says,  all  of  these  but  Scott  and 
Masked  were  originally  Low  Church.  In  1850-1,  the  secessions  to  Rome 
■were  over  100  clergymen  ;  in  1852,  200  clergymen  and  as  many  laity  ;  from 
Oxford,  118  clergymen  and  laymen.  Comp.  B.  Price ,  The  Anglo  Catholic 
Theory,  from  Edinb.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1851,  Lond.,  1852;  Cardinal  Wiseman , 
Essays,  vol.  2  ;  ibid.,  on  High  Church  Claims,  1842;  Christ.  Remb.,  Jan., 
1860;  Archd..  Afarc,  on  Contest  with  Rome,  1852  ;  Church  Eng.  Quart., 
1854;  Bp.  C.  P.  Mcllvaine ,  Oxford  Divinity,  Phila.,  1841  ;  Isaac  Taylor , 
Ancient  Christianity,  2  vols.,  4th  ed.,  1844  ;  Goode ,  on  Baptism  and  the 
Divine  Rule,  2  vols.,  1842  ;  Palmer ,  on  Church,  2  vols.,  1841.] 

13  [ Penn  DicJcson  Hampden  (Bp.  Hereford,  1847),  Phil.  Evid.  of  Christ., 
1827  ;  Parochial  Serm.,  2d  ed.,  Lond.,  1836  ;  Oxford  Serm.,  1848  ;  Lects. 
on  Moral  Philos.;  Tradition,  4th  ed.,  1841;  Thos.  Aquinas,  etc.,  from 
Encycl.  Metrop.,  1832,  3d  ed.,  1848.  His  Lectures  (Bampton)  on  the  Scho¬ 
lastic  Philos,  in  Relation  to  Christ  provoked  the  chief  controversy.  Comp. 
British  Critic,  xiv.  ;  Henry  Christmas ,  Hist,  of  Hampden  Controv.,  1848 
(with  documents) ;  Corresp.  between  D.  II.  and  Dr.  Ilowley,  Abpf  Cant.,  2d 
ed.,  1838  ;  Julius  Chs.  Hare ,  Letter  to  Dean  of  Chichester,  1848  ;  Dr.  H.’s 
Theol.  Statements  and  the  Thirty -Nine  Articles,  1836;  Edb.  Rev.  lxii. ; 
North  British,  viii. ;  Frazer’s  Mag.,  xxxvii. ;  Church  Rev.  (New  Haven)  i.] 

14  [The  Gorham  Case ,  1847,  sq.  Mr.  Gorham  denied  unconditional  bap¬ 
tismal  regeneration  ;  was  prosecuted  by  Bp.  Philpotts ,  of  Exeter,  who  was 
sustained  in  the  Court  of  Arches ;  but  this  decision  was  reversed  before  the 
Queen  in  Council,  1850.  Comp.  W.  E.  Gladstone ,  on  Royal  Supremacy, 
1850  ;  Julius  Chs.  Hare ,  Letter  to  Cavendish,  2d  ed.,  1850.  Letters  to  the 
Primate  by  a  Layman  ;  W.  J.  Irons ,  The  Present  Crisis,  and  Sequel ;  Keble, 
Church  Matters  in  1850  ;  Edinb.  Rev.,  xcii.  xcv.] 

15  [Denison  Case ,  1853—8,  on  Presence  of  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  in 
the  eucharist ;  Arch.  Denison,  removed  by  of  Bp.  of  Bath  ;  Appeal  of  Ditcher 
vs.  Denison  dismissed  by  Privy  Council,  1858.] 

18  [Alex.  Forbes,  Bishop  of  Brechin,  1847  (Scotland),  Explanation  of 
Nicene  Creed,  etc.,  1852.  The  controversy  in  his  case  is  upon  the  adoration 
of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  in  his  Charge,  1857.  Documents  collected, 
1860.  Mr.  Cheyne,  who  advocated  the  real  presence,  was  condemned  by 
the  Scottish  bishops,  1859.] 

17  [Edward  Copleston ,  Bp.  Llandaff,  b.  1776,  d.  1849  :  on  Necessity  and 
Predestination,  1821  (comp.  Quart.  Rev.  xxvi.)  ;  Praelectiones  Academics?, 
1813,  1838  ;  Sermons  and  Essays;  Replies  to  Edinb.  Rev.  against  Oxford, 
1810-11  ;  Memoirs,  1851.  He  was  the  head  of  the  Oriel  School  (Whately, 
Arnold,  etc.)] 

ie  [Richard  Whately,  Abp.  Dublin,  Bampton  Lect.  on  Party  Feeling, 
1822  ;  Logic;  Rhetoric;  Essays;  (1)  Some  Peculiarities  of  Christ.  Revel., 
4th  ed.,  1837,  (2)  Difficulties  in  St.  Paul,  5th  ed.,  1845,  (3)  Errors  of  Ro¬ 
manism  traced  to  their  Origin  in  Human  Nature,  4th  ed.,  1830  ;  The  King¬ 
dom  of  Christ  delineated,  1841;  Hist,  of  Relig.  Worship,  2d  ed.,  1849; 
Good  and  Evil  Angels,  1851 ;  Future  State,  1854,  etc.] 


428 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


19  Henry  Hart  Milman ,  Dean  of  St.  Paul’s;  Bampton  Lect.,  1827,  on 
Character  and  Conduct  of  the  Apostles;  Hist,  of  Jews,  3  vols.,  1840; 
Hist,  of  Christ,  to  Abolition  of  Paganism,  3,  Lond.,  1840  (New  York,  one 
vol.)  ;  Hist,  of  Latin  Christ.,  6  vols.,  2d  ed.,  1859,  8  vols.,  New  York,  1860. 
Richard  Chevenix  Trench ,  Dean  of  Westminster  :  Hulsean  Lect.,  1845-6 
(repr.  Phil.),  on  Fitness  of  Holy  Scripture  for  unfolding  Spiritual  Life,  and 
Christ  the  Desire  of  all  Nations;  Notes  on  Parables,  1841,  and  Miracles, 
1852,  various  editions,  reprinted  New  York,  1854  ;  on  Words,  Proverbs, 
English  Version,  etc. — Edward  Burton ,  Prof.  Div.  Oxf.,  b.  1794,  d.  1836 
(Works  5,  1837) ;  Heresies  of  Apostolic  Age,  1829  ;  Testimonies  of  Ante- 
Nicene  Fathers  to  Trinity  etc. ;  Eccl.  Hist,  of  first  Three  Centuries,  3d  ed., 
1845;  Hist,  of  Church  to  Constantine,  1836. — J.  J.  Blunt ,  Marg.  Prof. 
Oxf.,  d.  1859:  Ref.  in  England,  5th  ed.,  1840  ;  Undesigned  Coincidences, 
3d  ed.,  1850;  Lects.  on  Early  Fathers;  Constitution  of  Early  Church,  etc. 
Christopher  Wordsworth,  b.  1774,  d.  1846:  Christ.  Institutes,  1837 ;  Eccles. 
Biog.,  4  vols.,  1839. — Among  the  other  Anglican  divines  who  have  written 
chiefly  on  church  history  or  patristic  literature,  are  Routh ,  Gaisford ,  Ja¬ 
cobson,  Greswell,  Hardwick,  Faber,  J.  M.  Neale,  Stebbing,  Cardwell,  Hook, 
Chs.  Maitland,  S.  R.  Maitland ,  etc. —  G.  H.  Browne  on  Thirty-Nine  Arti¬ 
cles,  2  vols.  J.  B.  Mozley ,  Baptismal  Regen. ;  Augustinian  Predestination, 
1855.] 

20  [The  so-called  Broad  Church  designates,  indefinitely,  a  class  of  writers, 
who  received  an  impulse  from  the  philosophy  and  critical  method  of  Cole¬ 
ridge  (see  above,  note  5),  and  from  the  liberal  and  earnest  historical  spirit 
of  Arnold.  It  is  difficult  to  name  those  that  belong  here,  for  it  is  rather  a 
tendency  than  a  school.  Bunsen  was  affiliated  with  them.  Thos.  Arnold , 
Head-Master  of  Rugby,  b.  1798,  d.  1842 :  Hist,  of  Rome,  3,  1840-3  ;  later 
Rom.  Commonwealth,  2,  1847;  Introductory  Lect.  on  Mod.  Hist.,  2d  ed., 
1843;  Fragment  on  the  Church,  1844;  on  Prophecy,  1844;  Sermons; 
Miscellaneous  Works :  Life,  by  A.  P.  Stanley.  (Most  of  his  works  republ. 
in  New  York. — On  his  Theological  Opinions,  see  Tappan ,  in  Bibliotheca 
Sacra,  Jan.,  1858.) — Julius  Chs .  Hare ,  d.  1855  :  Victory  of  Faith,  etc., 
1840  ;  Unity  of  Church  ;  Mission  of  Comforter,  2d  ed.,  2,  1836  (Appendix 
on  Luther)  ;  Guesses  at  Truth  (with  his  Brother),  1847,  rep.  Boston,  1860  ; 
Contest  with  Rome  (against  Newman),  1852. — F.  D.  Maurice,  Kingdom  of 
Christ,  1838,  1842  (repr.);  Epist.  to  Hebrews,  1846;  Religions  of  World 
(Boyle  Lect.),  1847  ;  Lord’s  Prayer,  1848  ;  Lectures  on  O.  T.,  1851,  sq. ; 
Theol.  Essays.  1853;  on  Revelation  (against  Mansel),  1859,  etc. — F.  W. 
Robertson,  d.  1858  :  Sermons. — McLeod  Campbell,  on  the  Atonement,  1856. 
Chs.  Kingsley :  Village  Sermons ;  Limits  of  Exact  Science  as  applied  to 
History,  etc. — Arthur  P.  Stanley ,  Apost.  Age,  1847 ;  Memorials  of  Can- 
terb. ;  Lectures  on  Eastern  Church,  1861.] 

21  [ Samuel  Lee ,  b.  1783,  d.  1853  :  Hebr.  Gram,  and  Lex. ;  Book  of  Job, 
etc.  Journal  of  Sacred  Lit.,  ed.  by  Kitto,  1848-53,  now  by  Burgess. 
Kitto  published  Illustrated  Comm,  on  O.  and  N.  Test.,  5,  1840,  sq.  ;  vCyd. 
Bibl.  Lit.;  Bible  Illustrations,  etc.  S.  P.  Tregelles  :  Daniel,  1852  ;  His¬ 
toric  Evidences  ;  History  of  Printed  Text  N.  Test.,  etc. — Samuel  Davidson  : 
Bibl.  Criticism,  2,  1852  ;  Hermeneutics,  1843  ;  Introd.  to  N.  Test.,  3,  1848-« 


§  285,  b.  English  Theology  and  Philosophy.  429 

51  ,  Controversy  on  his  edition  of  the  2d  vol.  of  Horne’s  Introduction,  new 
ed.  S.  T.  Bloomfield :  Recensio  Synoptica,  8,  1826  ;  Greek  Test.,  2,  1841- 
50.  Chs.  Wordsworth ,  Apocalypse,  1848-9;  ed.  of  N.  Test,  and  Comm., 
etc. —  C.  J.  Ellicott ,  on  Epistles. —  Conybeare  and  Howson ,  on  St.  Paul. — 
Alford ,  New  Test.,  4  vols. — Jowett ,  on  Gal.,  Cor.,  etc.] 

22  [On  Gill ,  see  Note  13  of  previous  section.  Abraham  Booth ,  b.  1734, 
d.  1806:  Works,  3  vols.,  1813;  The  Reign  of  Grace;  Death  of  Legal 
Hope  the  Life  of  Evangelical  Obedience,  etc.] 

23  [ John  Byland  (the  father),  b.  1723,  d.  1792  :  Scheme  of  Infidelity, 
1770;  Contemplation  on  Creation,  3,  1779-82.  John  Byland  (the  son),  b. 
1753,  d.  1825. — Andrew  Fuller,  b.  1754,  d.  1815.  Works,  1853,  and  often: 
Gospel  Worthy  of  all  Acceptation ;  Calvinism  and  Socinianism  compared  ; 
Letters  on  Controversy  with  Rev.  A.  Booth  ;  Antinomianism  contrasted  with 
the  Religion  of  the  Scriptures,  etc.  He  adopted  in  the  main  the  principles 
of  Jonathan  Edwards. — Samuel  Stennett ,  d.  1795  :  Works,  3,  1824. — John 
Foster,  b.  1768,  d.  1843:  Essays;  Popular  Ignorance;  Contributions  to 
Eclectic  Rev.,  2,  1844.  Life  by  J E.  Byland,  2d  ed.,  2,  1848. — Bobert 
Hall,  b.  1764,  d.  1831  :  Works,  with  Life  by  Gregory,  6,  1839  ;  Reminis- 
oences,  by  John  Greene,  1832. — Alex.  Carson,  Baptism  in  its  Modes  and  Sub¬ 
jects,  1844,  etc.] 

24  [ John  Bye  Smith ,  Principal  of  Homerton,  b.  1775,  d.  1851.  The 
Sacrifice  of  Christ,  1813;  Script.  Test,  to  Messiah,  1847;  Script,  and 
Geology,  4th  ed.,  1848;  First  Lines  of  Christ.  Theol.  (posthumous),  2d  ed., 
1860;  Memoirs  by  Medway. — George  Payne,  d,  1848  :  Mental  and  Moral 
Science,  3d  ed.,  1845  ;  Divine  Sovereignty,  3d  ed.,  1846  ;  Original  Sin, 
1845 ;  Lect.,  on  Theol.,  2  vols.,  1850. — John  Harris,  Principal  of  New  Col¬ 
lege,  d.  1857  :  Great  Teacher;  Man  Primeval,  1849;  Prse-Adamite  Earth, 
etc.  F.  Henderson,  Divine  Inspiration  (Cong.  Lect.),  1836  ;  Isaiah,  1840  ; 
Minor  Prophets,  1845  (repr.  Andov.,  1859);  Jeremiah,  1851.  William 
Jay,  d.  1859  :  Works,  12  vols. — Bobert  Vaughan ,  ed.  of  Brit.  Quart.  Rev., 
Causes  of  Corruption  of  Christ.,  1852  ;  Essays,  2,  1849  ;  John  de  Wycliffe, 
1832,  1853  ;  Congregationalism  and  Modern  Society;  Revolutions  in  Eng. 
Hist.,  1859-61.  John  Kelly :  The  Divine  Covenants,  1861.] 

26  [Among  these  are  the  Bridgewater  Treatises  ;  the  prize  (Burnet)  essays 
of  Thompson  and  Tulloch ;  Pearson,  on  Infidelity ;  Hampden's  Phil.  Evi¬ 
dences  ;  Smyth ,  Lect.  on  Evid. ;  Faber's  Difficulties  of  Infidelity  ;  F.  Dove, 
Logic  of  Christianity  ;  W.  H.  Mill ,  Christian  Advocate  (against  Strauss)  ; 
T.  Young,  Christ  in  History  ;  Isaac  Taylor ,  Restoration  of  Belief ;  BirTcs , 
Difficulties  of  Belief ;  Henry  Bogers,  The  Eclipse  of  Faith,  etc. ;  Ed.  Miall , 
Bases  of  Belief,  3d  ed.,  1861.] 

26  [Essays  and  Reviews,  1859,  9th  ed.,  1861,  reprinted  Boston,  ed.  by  F. 
H  Hedge,  under  the  title,  Recent  Inquiries  in  Theology.  They  are  under 
examination  by  a  Committee  of  Convocation.  In  these  Essays,  Dr.  Bow- 
land  Williams  reproduces  the  critical  hypotheses  of  Bunsen  ;  Baden  Powell 
(d.  1860,  author  of  Essays  Nat.  Phil.,  Inductive  Science,  etc.),  discredits  the 
argument  from  miracles ;  Mr.  Goodwin  shows  the  inconsistency  between 
science  and  the  Mosaic  Cosmogony ;  Prof.  Jowett  advocates  such  an  inter¬ 
pretation  of  Scripture  as  would  annul  every  creed  in  Christendom.  Numer- 


* 

430  Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 

ons  articles  and  works  (over  50)  have  already  been  written  in  reply  ;  West¬ 
minster  Rev.,  Oct.,  1860 ;  Quart.  Review,  Jan.,  1861  ;  British  Quart.  Jan.; 
North  Brit.  Review,  Aug.  ( Isaac  Taylor );  Christ.  Rembr.,  Oct.,  1860  ; 
Edinb.  Rev.,  April,  ’61  ( Stanley  ?);  Journal  Sac.  Lit.,  April ;  North  Am. 
Rev.,  Jan  ;  Am.  Theol.  Rev.,  April ;  Am.  Quart.  Church  Rev.,  July. 
See  also  Jas.  Buchanan ,  Essays  and  Reviews  Examined,  Edb.,  1861  ;  Jelf, 
Specific  Evidence  of  ITnsoundness,  etc. ;  Lord  Lindsay ,  Scepticism,  its  Re¬ 
trogressive  Character. 

27  [The  position  taken  in  these  Lectures  is,  that  the  ideas  of  the  Infinite, 
Absolute,  Cause,  etc.,  are  negative  in  the  view  of  reason),  the  result  of  an 
impotence  of  the  mind.  This  is  on  the  basis  of  Hamilton's  theory  of  knowl¬ 
edge.  Comp.  North  British,  Feb.,  1859;  Brownson’s  Quart.,  Jan.,  1860  ; 
Am.  Theol.  Rev.,  Feb.,  1860;  Bibliotheca  Sacra  (. Hickolc ),  Jan.,  1860; 
Brit.  Quart.,  July,  1860  ;  Dorner ,  in  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theologie,  1860  ; 
Maurice ,  What  is  Revelation?  and  Mansel’s  Reply,  1859-60  ;  John  Young , 
Province  of  Reason,  I860.] 


§  285,  c. 

THEOLOGY  AND  PHILOSOPHY  IN  SCOTLAND. 

[The  discussions  and  divisions  in  Scotland  during  the  first  half  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  were  chiefly  ecclesiastical,1  though  theologi¬ 
cal  differences  came  to  light  in  the  Marrow  Controversy ,2  and 
Sandemanianism .3  The  Moderates 4  ruled  under  the  Robertson 
administration  (1758-82)  :  the  tone  of  their  theology  was  moral, 
mitigating  the  strictness  of  the  old  Confessions.  ( Leechman ,  Blair , 
Beattie ,  Macknight ,  Campbell). 5  The  theological  writings  of  the 
Er shines,  Maclaurin ,  John  Dick  and  Principal  Hill ,  upheld  the 
Scotch  orthodoxy.0] 

[Philosophical  investigations  were  most  rife  in  Scotland,  when 
England  was  indifferent  to  speculation.  The  scepticism  of  David 
Hume 7  was  supplanted  by  the  vigorous  common  sense  of  Thomas 
Reid.8  On  the  same  general  basis  Dug  aid  Stewart ,9  wrote  his  elo¬ 
quent  Disquisitions.  Dr.  Thos.  Brown,™  in  his  fervid  Lectures  crit¬ 
icised  details  of  the  system  with  great  ingenuity,  without  effecting 
permanent  results.  Sir  William  Hamilton,  with  unusual  learning  and 
subtility,  commented  on  Reid,  defined  clearly  the  province  of  Logic, 
and  tried  to  overthrow  transcendental  speculations  by  a  denial 
of  all  positive  knowledge  of  the  Infinite  and  the  Absolute.13  Other 
Scotch  philosophers12  have  rendered  good  service  in  different  branches 
of  speculation.] 

[The  revival  of  evangelical  theology  was  stimulated  by  the  preach¬ 
ing  and  teaching  of  Thos.  Chalmers.™  The  Free  Church,  1843, 
(the  most  remarkable  religious  movement  of  the  century)  doubled 


§  285,  c.  Theology  and  Philosophy  in  Scotland.  431 

the  efficiency  of  the  church.  The  recent  representatives  of  Scotch 
theology  ( John  Brown ,  Dick ,  Grombie ,  Dewar ,  Symington ,  McCrie , 
Buchanan ,  Candlisli ,  Cunningham  and  others),15  and  of  Biblical 
learning  (Eadie,  Fairbairn ,  etc.)18  unite  adherence  to  the  older  con¬ 
fessions  with  a  liberal  and  earnest  scholarship.  The  Independents17 
are  represented  by  Wardlaw  and  IP.  L .  Alexander.  The  Unita¬ 
rian  controversy  divided  for  a  time  the  Irish  Presbyterians. 1R] 

1  [7%?  Associate  Presbytery  (Ralph  and  Eben  Erskine,  with  six  others) 
was  formed  in  1733  (Synod  1746)  because  the  Assembly  yielded  on  the 
question  of  civil  patronage.  This  was  again  divided,  1747,  into  Burghers 
and  Anti-Burghers ,  on  the  question  of  the  oath  administered  to  freemen  in 
the  Royal  Burghs,  (The  Burghers,  1786,  divided  into  New  and  Old  Light). 
The  Reformed  Presbyterians  ( Covenanters ,  Cameronians),  separated  in  1743 
(opposed  to  the  Revolution  settlement) ;  the  Relief  Secession  ( Thos .  Gillespie , 
Thos.  Boston ),  1761,  in  opposition  to  patronage.] 

2  [The  Assembly  in  1710,  passed  an  act  for  the  Preservation  of  the  Purity 
of  Doctrine,  bearing  against  the  stricter  adherents  to  the  Covenants.  Prof. 
Simpson  of  Glasgow,  was  mildly  censured  for  Arminian  views,  while  the 
Auchterarder  Creed  (interpreted  as  Antinomian)  was  condemned.  In  1718 
Fisher's  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity  (published  in  1646  :  Edward  Fisher, 
b.  1597,  d.  in  Ireland),  was  republished  by  Hog ;  and  the  Neonomians 
(moderates)  of  the  Assembly,  1720,  condemned  five  propositions  said  to  be 
drawn  from  it;  1.  That  assurance  is  of  the  essence  of  faith.  2.  Unlimited 
offer  of  Christ  to  all  men,  a  warrant  to  each  one  to  receive  Christ.  3. 
Holiness  not  necessary  to  salvation.  4.  Punishment  and  reward  not 
motives  to  obedience.  5.  The  law  is  not  a  rule  of  life  to  believers.  The 
book  was  prohibited — and  ran  through  numerous  editions;  19th  ed.,  by 
Boston,  1803.  The  Associate  Secession  (above)  was  involved  in  this  contro¬ 
versy.] 

8  [John  Glas ,  b.  1638,  d.  1773  ;  Works,  2d  ed.,  5,  1782  ;  in  1727,  he 
published  a  treatise  to  show  that  civil  establishments  are  unchristian  (The 
Testimony  of  the  King  of  Martyrs  concerning  his  Kingdom) :  he  was  deposed 
and  formed  a  sect.  In  1775  Robert  Sandeman,  an  elder  in  one  of  these 
churches  (b.  1723,  d.  in  America  1771),  wrote  Letters  on  [Hervey’s]  Theron 
and  Aspasia,  maintaining  that  faith  is  the  simple  assent  of  the  understanding 
to  the  truth  (opposing  Flavel,  Boston  and  the  Erskines) ;  and  that  the  death  of 
Christ,  without  man’s  act,  is  sufficient  to  justify.  Sandeman  came  to  Amer¬ 
ica  in  1764.  These  churches  maintained  unanimity  by  expelling  the  min¬ 
ority.  See  Andrew  Fuller's  Twelve  Letters  (Works,  256-294)  ;  Bellamy's 
Nature  and  Glory  of  the  Gospel.] 

4  [William  Robertson,  the  historian  (b.  1721,  d.  1793,  minister  at  Edin¬ 
burgh,  1759,  Principal  of  Univ.,  1762),  was  for  a  long  time  the  recognized 
leader  of  the  Assembly,  and  head  of  the  moderate  party.  He  only  published 
one  Sermon,  viz.,  The  Situation  of  the  World  at  the  Time  of  Christ’s  Appear¬ 
ance,  6th  ed.,  1791.  Geo.  Cook  (minister  of  Laurence  Kirk,  author  of  Hist, 
of  Ref.  in  Scotland,  2d  ed.,  3,  1819,  and  Hist,  of  Chh.  of  S.,  3,  1815)  sue- 


432 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


ceeded  Robertson  as  leader,  giving  a  higher  tone  ;  and  Principal  Hill  followed. 
As  late  as  1796,  the  Assembly  rejected  a  proposal  for  foreign  missions. 
BucJcle ,  in  his  Hist,  of  Civilization  (vol.  2,  1861),  gives  a  caricature  rather 
than  a  history  of  the  state  of  religion  in  Scotland.] 

&  [Many  of  the  moderates  adopted  the  ethical  principles  of  Francis  Hutch¬ 
eson,  b.  1694,  Prof,  at  Glasgow,  1729,  d.  1747  ;  Introd.  to  Moral  Philos., 
1747;  Moral  Sense,  3d  ed.,  1769  ;  Origin  of  Ideas  of  Beauty  and  Virtue, 
1725  ;  5th  ed.,  1753  ;  System  of  Moral  Phil.,  with  his  character  by  Leech- 
man,  ed.  by  his  son,  2,  4to.,  1775  ;  Letters  on  Virtue,  1772.  Wm.  Leech- 
man,  Prof,  at  Glasgow,  1743,  d.  1783  ;  Sermons  with  Memoir  by  Jas.  Wodrow , 

2,  1789.  Hugh  Blair ,  b.  1718,  d.  1800  :  Sermons,  Lectures  on  Rhetoric, 

3,  1803;  he  defended  Hume  against  the  Assembly. — James  Beattie ,  b.  1735, 
Prof,  in  Aberdeen,  d.  1803  :  On  Immutability  of  Truth,  1770  (for  which  the 
Univ.  of  Oxford  made  him  LL.  D.) ;  Essays ;  Moral  and  Critical  Disserta¬ 
tions,  1783;  Evidences,  4th  ed.,  1795;  Moral  Sciences,  3d  ed.,  1817;  Life 
by  Sir  Wm.  Forbes,  3,  1807. — James  Macknight,  b.  1721,  d.  1800:  Har¬ 
mony  of  Gospels,  5th  ed.,  2,  1819  ;  Epistles,  4,  1795,  and  often  since.  Geo. 
Campbell,  b.  1719,  Principal  of  Marischall  College,  1759,  Prof.  Div.,  1771,  d. 
1796.  The  Four  Gospels,  1790,  4,  3d  ed.,  1814;  Diss.  on  Miracles,  1762, 
new  ed.,  1723,  transl.  in  French, Dutch  and  German;  Rhetoric,  1776  ;  Lect. 
on  Syst.  Theob,  1807  ;  Eccles.  Hist.,  1800,  and  often  (Bp.  Skinner's  Positive 
Truth  and  Order,  1803,  in  reply).  Thos.  Reid  (see  below).  Carlyle  (Auto¬ 
biography,  first  publ.,  1860,  also  belonged  to  the  Moderates.] 

6  [Evangelical  Religion  had  a  strong  hold  of  the  popular  mind.  White- 
field  was  in  Scotland  nine  times,  1741-68.  There  was  constant  correspond¬ 
ence  between  the  Scotch  and  American  Divines.  Ebenezer  Erskine,  b.  1680, 
d.  1754  (a  grandson  of  Ralph  Erskine,  who  had  33  children);  Works,  3, 
1799,  1810;  Sermons  and  Discourses;  Life,  1831.  His  brother  Ralph , 
1685-1752:  Works,  2,  fob,  1764-66;  10,  1777-1821.  John  Erskine, 
1721-1803  :  Theol.  Diss.,  1765  ;  Sketches  of  Church  Hist,  and  Theol.  Con- 
trov.,  2,  1790-7.  Thos.  Gillespie  (of  Presb.  of  Relief),  d.  1774. — John 
Maclaurin  of  Glasgow,  b.  1793,  d.  1854  :  Prophecies  relating  to  Messiah  ; 
Nature  of  Happiness;  Sermons  and  Essays;  Works,  2,  1860,  ed.  W.  H. 
Goold  (“  scarcely  less  intellectual  than  Butler,  he  is  as  spiritual  as  Leighton” 
— Dr,  John  Brown).  His  sermon  on  Glorying  in  the  Cross,  is  of  high  rer 
pute. — John  Dick  (Prof,  to  Associate  Synod),  b.  1764,  d.  1833  ;  Lectures  on 
Theol.,  2d  ed.,  1838,  repr.  New  York,  1856  ;  Inspiration,  3d  ed.,  1813  ;  on 
Acts,  3d  ed.,  1848. — George  Hill,  b.  1748,  Principal  St.  Mary’s,  d.  1820  ; 
Theol.  Institutes,  1803  ;  Lect.  on  Divinity,  3,  1821  ;  5th  ed.,  1849,  New 
York,  1847.  Jas.  Morison  was  condemned,  1841,  for  holding  that  Christ 
died  equally  for  all  men  (in  United  Secession  Synod,  Dr.  Brown  dissenting) ; 
he  afterwards  also  denied  unconditional  election ;  an  Evangelical  Union 
formed.] 

7  [David  Hume,  (see  §  275,  285.)  His  essay  on  Miracles  provoked  the 
most  immediate  opposition  ;  but  the  fundamental  principles  of  his  sceptical 
philosophy,  asserting  that  nothing  is  certain  (real)  but  sensations  and  ideas, 
aroused  a  profounder  criticism  ;  awaking  Kant  in  Germany  “  from  his  dog¬ 
matic  slumbers,”  and  leading  Reid  to  plant  philosophy  upon  “common  sense,” 


§  285,  c.  Theology  and  Philosophy  in  Scotland.  433 

afterwards  defined  as  the  “  fundamental  laws  of  human  belief.”  See  Cousin, 
Hist,  of  Mod.  Philos.;  Hamilton's  Discussions;  Christ.  Exam.  [Walker), 
Nov.,  1854  ;  Brownson's  Quarterly,  Oct.,  1855;  Christ.  Rev.,  April,  1855  ; 
Quart.  Rev.,  73.] 

6  [ Thos .  Reid ,  Prof.  Moral  Philosophy,  in  Glasgow,  d.  1796  :  Inquiry  into 
the  Human  Mind  on  Principles  of  Common  Sense,  15*64;  Essay  on  the  In¬ 
tellectual  Powers  of  the  Human  Mind,  1764  ;  3, 1819  ;  Active  Powers,  1788  ; 
Hamilton's  ed.,  Edinb.,  1846-52,  5th  ed.,  1858,  incomplete  (made  doubly 
valuable  by  Hamilton’s  notes).  Stewart's  Life  and  Writings  of  Reid, 
(Works,  vii.,  207-293).  His  works  have  been  translated  into  French; 
Reyer-Collard  adopted  his  views:  see  Cousin's  Lectures.  Metaphysics,  as 
distinct  from  Psychology,  was  ignored  in  Scotland  from  the  time  of  Reid.] 

9  \_Dugald  Stewart, b.  1753,  d.  1828  :  Elements  of  Philos,  of  Human  Mind  ; 
Moral  Philos.  (Walker’s  ed.,  Bost.,  1850)  ;  Phil.  Essays ;  Progress  of  Philos, 
(in  Encycl.  Brit.)  ;  Works,  7  vols.,  Bost.,  1829,  new  ed.,  by  Hamilton,  1858 
sq.  Life  and  Philos.,  in  North  British,  1858.  See  also  Mackintosh  in 
Edinb.  Rev.  xxvii.,  and  Jeffrey,  ibid.,  xvii. ;  Quart.  Rev.  vi. ;  Morell's  Hist. 
Phil.  His  Elem.  of  Phil.,  transl.  into  French,  by  Prevost  of  Geneva  ;  2d.  vol., 
by  Farcy  •  his  Prelim.  Disc,  by  Buchon  ;  Phil,  of  Active  Powers,  by  Simon.] 

10  [Thos.  Brown,  M.  B.,  b.  1778,  d.  1820.  Inquiry  into  Relation  of 
Cause  and  Effect  (invariable  antecedent),  1804,  4th  ed.,  1835  ;  Lectures  on 
Phil.  Human  Mind,  ed.  B>.  Welsh,  1820,  11th  ed.,  1838;  abridged  U.  S. 
ed.,  Hedge,  2  ;  Lect.  on  Moral  Philos.,  ed.  Chalmers.  Comp.  North  Am. 
xix.,  and  for  July,  1829  ;  North  British,  1857.  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton's  severe 
article  against  Brown  (on  Perception)  in  Edbg.  Rev.,  1830,  is  reprinted  in  his 
Discussions.  Brown’s  system  makes  mental  philosophy  to  be  essentially  a 
generalization  of  states  of  mind ;  the  faculties  are  put  under  the  two  great 
laws  of  simple  and  relative  suggestion.] 

11  [Nzr  William  Hamilton,  b.  in  Glasgow,  1788,  Prof.  Logic  and  Metaph. 
in  Edinb.,  1836,  d.  1856.  Review  of  Cousin,  Edinb.  Rev.,  1829  ;  on  Whate- 
ly’s  Logic,  1833  ;  Discussions  in  Phil.  Lit.,  etc.,  New  York,  1853  ;  Lectures 
on  Metaphysics  and  Logic,  ed.  by  Mansel  and  Veitch  (4  vol).,  Bost.,  2,  1859- 
60  ;  Essays  in  French,  by  Peisse.  While  verbally  defending,  he  in  reality 
undermined,  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Scotch  system,  making  infinite 
and  absolute  merely  negative  to  thought,  though  admitting  the  necessity  of 
belief.  Comp.  Baynes ,  in  Edinb.  Essays,  1854.  On  his  system  see  Calder- 
wood's  Philos,  of  Infinite,  2d  ed.,  1861  ;  Philos,  of  Sir  W.  H.,  arranged  by 
O.  W.  Wight,  New  York,  1853  ;  North  British,  Nov.,  1858,  May,  1859  ; 
Brit.  Quart.,  Nov.,  1852;  Prosp.  Rev.,  July,  1853;  Westminster,  April, 
1859  ;  Frazer’s  Mag.,  1860  ;  Christ.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1854,  Jan.,  I860.  July,  1861 ; 
Brownson’s  Quart.,  1855  ;  Meth.  Quart.,  Jan.,  1857,  July,  1861 ;  South 
Presb.,  Jan.,  1856  ;  Presb.  Quart.,  Oct.,  1858;  Princeton  Rev.,  Oct.,  1859, 
and  July,  1860  ;  New  Englander,  Feb.,  1860  ;  Bib.  Sacra,  Jan.,  1861  :  North 
Am.,  Jan.,  1861  ;  Remusat  in  Rev.  des  deux  Mondes ;  American  Theol.  Rev., 
Jan.,  1861,  and  Me  Cosh,  in  his  work  on  Intuitions,  I860.] 

12  [/.  F.  Ferrier,  Institutes  of  Metaphysics,  the  Theory  of  Knowing  and 
Being,  2d  ed.,  1856. — Jas.  McCosh,  Method  of  Divine  Government,  Physi¬ 
cal  and  Moral,  repr.,  New  York,  1851  ;  Typical  Forms,  1856  ;  Intuitions  of 


434 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


the  Mind  inductively  investigated,  1860.  P.  G.  Dove ,  Theory  of  Human 
Progression,  1851  ;  Logic  of  Christianity,  1856. — Jas.  Douglas ,  Philos,  of 
Mind,  1839.  Geo.  Jamieson ,  Essentials  of  Philos.,  Edbg.,  1859.  A.  C. 
Fraser ,  Rational  Philosophy,  1858.  J.  G.  Macvicar ,  Inq.  into  Human  Na¬ 
ture.  Chalmers  and  Wardlaw ,  see  below.] 

13  [Thos.  Chalmers,  b.  1780,  Glasgow,  1814;  Prof.  St.  Andrew’s  1824; 
Edinb.,  1828;  Prof.  Theol.  Free  Church  College,  1843;  d.  1847;  Works, 
25  vols.  :  Posthumous,  ed.  Hanna,  9  vols. ;  Memoirs,  4  vols. — Among  his 
works  are  Natural  Theology ;  Internal  Evidences ;  Sketches  of  Moral  and 
Mental  Phil.;  Discourses  on  Astronomy,  1817  ;  Christian  and  Economic 
Polity,  1821-6 ;  Political  Economy,  1832;  Lectures  on  Romans;  Bridge- 
water  Treatise ;  Horse  Biblicse ;  Institutes  of  Theology,  2  ;  Preelections  on 
Butler,  Paley  and  Hill.  He  adopted,  in  the  main,  the  theology  of  Edwards, 
according  with  him  (in  his  Lects.  on  Romans)  in  respect  to  the  imputation 
of  Adam’s  sin,  though  afterwards  modifying  his  statements  on  this  point.] 

14  [The  Free  Church  movement  was  on  the  question  of  State  patronage 
and  intrusion,  raised  by  the  Auchterarder  case,  1837.  The  Assembly,  241 
to  110,  in  1842,  passed  the  Protest  anent  Encroachments .  The  House  of 
Lords  decided  against  it.  In  1843,  Solemn  Protest  against  State  Encroach¬ 
ments,  and  withdrawal  of  474.  Dr.  Welch,  moderator;  Chalmers,  Gordon, 
McFarlane  and  others.  Five  hundred  new,  churches  were  built  in  a  year. 
Comp.  Candlish,  Summary  of  the  Quest,  respecting  the  Church  of  Scot¬ 
land,  1841.] 

16  [ John  Brown  (United  Presb.),  d.  1857  :  Civil  Obedience,  3d  ed.,  1839, 
First  Epistle  of  Peter,  2d  ed.,  1849  (New  York)  ;  Discourses  and  Sayings  of 
Christ,  3,  1852  (N.  Y.) ;  Our  Lord’s  Intercessory  Prayer,  1850  ;  Resurrection 
of  Life,  1852,  etc. ;  Sufferings  and  Glories  of  Messiah  ;  Galatians,  1853. — 
Thos.  Diclc,  b.  1774,  d.  1857  ;  Christian  Philosopher,  1823,  and  often; 
Philos,  of  Religion  ;  Philos,  of  Future  State.  Works,  10  vols.,  Phil. — 
Alex.  Crombie,  b.  1760,  d.  1842  :  Philos.  Necessity,  1793  ;  Natural  Theol., 
2,  1829,  etc. — Daniel  Dewar,  Design  of  Christ.,  1818;  Holy  Spirit,  1847  ; 
The  Church,  1845;  Elements  of  Moral  Phil.,  2,  1826  ;  Nature  of  Atone¬ 
ment,  new  ed.,  1860. — Thos.  McCrie ,  b.  1772,  d.  1835:  Life  of  Melville; 
Ref.  in  Spain  (1829),  Italy  (1833)  ;  Sketches  Eccles.  Hist. ;  Life  by  his  Son, 
1840. — Jas.  Buchanan,  Office  of  Holy  Spirit,  4th  ed.,  1843  ;  on  Modern 
Infidelity  and  Atheism,  2,  1858.  William  Symington,  Atonement  and  In¬ 
tercession  of  Christ,  1834,  New  York,  1856,  on  Justification  ;  Elements  of 
Divine  Truth. —  Geo.  Stevenson,  The  Offices  of  Christ. —  Gordon  (Ao5.)  Christ 
in  Old  Test.,  2  vols. — Hugh  Miller,  d.  1856,  Footprints  of  Creation  ;  Old 
Red  Sandstone,  4th  ed.,  1850. — Robert  S.  Candlish,  Expos,  of  Genesis,  2, 
1852  ;  Cross  of  Christ;  the  Atonement,  1835,  new  ed.,  1861  (the  act  of 
atonement  postponed  to  the  end  of  the  world — so  as  to  reconcile  the  uni¬ 
versal  offer  with  the  limited  redemption)  ;  Reply  to  Maurice,  1856  ;  The 
Two  Great  Commandments,  1860.  Principal  Cunningham,  articles  in  the 
Brit,  and  For.  Evangelical  Review,  of  which  he  is  editor.  The  North  Brit¬ 
ish  Review,  1844,  sq.,  is  in  the  interest  of  the  Free  Church.] 

16  [ John  Eadie  (United  Presb.),  Bibl.  Cyclop.,  6th  ed.,  1857  ;  Ephesians, 
1853,  1859;  Colossians,  1856;  Philippians,  1859. — Patrick  Fairbairn ,  St. 


§  285,  d.  Theology  in  the  United  States  of  America.  435 

Peter,  2,  1836  ;  Typology  of  Script.,  2,  1845,  3d  ed.,  1857,  Pliila.  1853  ; 
Prophecy,  1856;  Hermeneutical  Manual,  1858;  Ezekiel. — Donald  Mac¬ 
donald,  Creation  and  Fall,  1856  ;  Introd.  to  Pentateuch,  1860. — J.  A.  Hal¬ 
dane,  d.  1851,  on  Romans.  Thos.  Guthrie,  The  Gospel  in  Ezekiel. — Tlie 
works  of  Brown,  Chalmers,  and  Candlish ,  see  above.  Some  of  the  best 
works  of  German  theology  have  been  reproduced  in  the  valuable  Foreign 
Library  of  the  Clarks,  Edinburgh.] 

17  [Ralph  Wardlaw ,  d.  1853,  Socinian  Controversy,  1815-16  ;  Ecclesi¬ 
astes,  2,  1821  ;  Christian  Ethics,  3d  ed.,  1837  (repr.  in  Boston) ;  Congrega¬ 
tional  Independency,  1848  ;  Atonement,  3d  ed.,  1845  ;  Infant  Baptism, 
1846  ;  Miracles,  1852  (N.  Y.,  1857)  ;  posthumous,  Lects.  on  Theol.  3,  and 
Expository  Lectures  on  Proverbs,  etc. —  W.  L .  Alexander,  Connexion  and 
Harmony  of  Old  and  New  Test.,  1841  ;  Anglo-Catholicism  not  Apostolical, 
1843;  Swiss  Churches,  1846;  Christ  and  Christianity;  Life  and  Corresp. 
of  Wardlaw.] 

18  [In  1827  a  division  on  the  Trinity  in  the  Ulster  Synod  ;  W.  Bruce  led 
the  Unitarians  ;  Dr.  Geo.  Cooice,  the  Trinitarians.  Theological  College  of 
Belfast:  W.  Gibson,  McCosh,  W.  D.  Killen  (the  Ancient  Church,  2d  ed., 
1861.)] 


§  285,  d. 

THEOLOGY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 

New  England  :  Edwards  and  his  School. 

[Christian  Theology  in  America  has  received  some  peculiar  modi¬ 
fications  adapting  it  to  the  new  position  and  relations  of  the  church. 
Its  most  marked  and  original  growth  has  been  in  the  line  of  the 
Reformed  or  Calvinistic  system.  The  separation  of  the  church  from 
the  state,  the  unexampled  immigration,  and  the  rapid  growth  of  the 
country,  made  the  pressure  to  come  upon  the  practical  rather  than 
the  theoretical  aspects  of  Christian  truth.  Hence,  the  most  thorough 
discussions  and  controversies  have  been  chiefly  upon  questions  of 
anthropology  and  soteriology.  Systems  of  theology  have  all  been 
preached.  Controversy  too,  has  been  sharpened  by  the  fact,  that  in 
the  new  world  are  representatives  of  all  the  ecclesiastical  divisions  of 
the  old  world,  with  many  sectarian  subdivisions.  The  minor  sects 
of  Europe  have  had  the  sway  in  America.] 

[The  starting-point  in  this  new  development  of  the  Reformed 
faith  is  with  Jonathan  Edwards /  who  fortified  the  Calvinistic  theo- 
logy  against  Arminian  objections,  in  his  works,  on  the  Will  and  on 
Original  Sin.  The  central  idea  of  his  system  is  that  of  spiritual  life 
(holy  love)  as  the  gift  of  divine  grace.  Extensive  revivals  of  religion 
attended  his  preaching  ( Whitefield ).2  Bellamy  ,3  Smalley  ,4  Backus* 
and  Stephen  West*  taught  in  the  main  in  his  spirit.  Other  New 
England  divines  ( Prince ,  Mayhew ,  Prests.  Clap  and  Stiles ,  Samuel 


436 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


West ,  Cks.  Chauncy ,  S.  Mather )/  and  their  Presbyterian  cotempor¬ 
aries  (Tennent,  Davies ,  Prests.  Dickinson ,  Burr  and  Witherspoon), 
were  but  partially  inclined  to,  in  some  cases  opposing,  the  views  of 
Edwards.]8 

[, Samuel  Hopkins 9  gave  to  Edwards’s  theory  of  virtue  (love  to 
being),  the  form  of  disinterested  benevolence;  held  that  sin  (overruled) 
was  an  advantage  to  the  universe  ;  and  equally  enforced  the  divine 
sovereignty  and  the  obligation  of  immediate  repentance  ( Hopkinsian - 
ism).  The  younger  Edwards' 0  modified  the  theory  of  the  atonement. 
Nathaniel  Emmons 11  pressed  the  doctrine  of  divine  efficiency,  and 
the  necessity  of  unconditional  submission,  to  their  sharpest  state¬ 
ment,  and  matured  the  Exercise  Scheme ,  denying  all  original  sin, 
and  making  justification  to  consist  in  pardon.  Other  Hopkinsians, 
Asa  Burton ,12  Leonard  Woods, 13  advocated  the  Taste  Scheme.  The 
Connecticut  theologians  ( Smalley ,  Dwight,  Strong),  and  other  New 
England  divines,  preferred  a  less  extreme  statement  of  the  main 
points  of  the  Calvinistic  system.]14 

[ The  Neiv  Haven  theology 16  ( Natlil .  W.  Taylor,  Fitch,  Goodrich) 
planted  itself  in  direct  opposition  to  the  old  Hopkinsian  theories  on 
three  points,  viz.,  divine  efficiency,  sin  as  the  necessary  means  of  the 
greatest  good,  and  the  nature  of  virtue,  while  agreeing  with  Emmons 
in  the  position,  that  all  that  is  moral  is  in  exercises  (interpreted  as  acts 
of  the  will).  Unitar ianism16  was  an  offshoot  from  the  lingering  Ar- 
minianism  of  New  England,  and  also  in  part  a  reaction  from  extreme 
Calvinistic  principles,  and  a  further,  onesided,  development  of  some 
of  the  ethical  principles  of  the  prevalent  theology  (  William  Ellery 
Channing,  Buckminster,  Norton,  Dewey  and  others.)17  The  specu¬ 
lations  of  Horace  Bushnell1 8  revived  the  controversy  as  to  the  per¬ 
son  of  Christ.] 

1  ['Jonathan  Edwards ,  b.  1703,  at  Northampton,  1727,  dismissed,  1750  ; 
missionary  at  Stockbridge,  d.  1758,  Prest.  of  N.  J.  College.  He  opposed 
the  views  of  his  predecessor  and  grandfather,  John  Stoddard ,  on  the  Lord’s 
Supper  as  a  converting  ordinance.  Sermons  on  Justif.,  1738  ;  Religious 
Affections,  1746;  Freedom  of  the  Will,  1754 — philosophical  necessity; 
Original  Sin,  1758 — identity  with  Adam  in  his  transgression  (“the  guilt  a 
man  has  upon  his  soul  at  his  first  existence  is  one  and  simple,  viz.,  the  guilt 
of  the  original  apostacy,  the  guilt  of  the  sin  by  which  the  species  first  re¬ 
belled  against  God.”)  His  chief  posthumous  works  (by  Hopkins ),  were 
Hist,  of  Redemption,  1774;  Nature  of  Virtue,  1788  ;  the  End  of  God  in 
Creation  (his  declarative  glory).  Works:  Worcester,  Mass.,  8,  1809; 
Lond.  ed.,  Williams ,  8,  1817  ;  vols.  9,  10,  Edinb.,  1847  ;  Lond.,  2,  by  Hick¬ 
man,  1839  ;  10  vols.,  with  Life  by  S.  Dwight,  1830 ;  4,  N.  Y.,  1844  ;  Wor¬ 
cester  ed.,  rep.  in  N.  Y.  4,  1855.  On  Charity  and  its  Fruits,  N.  Y.,  1852. 
Life  by  Hopkins ,  by  Sami.  Miller  (in  Sparks’  Am.  Biog.,  1st.  s.  viii.  Arti¬ 
cle  by  Geo.  Bancroft,  in  New  Am.  Cyclop. — “  I  consider  Jonathan  Edwards 


§  285,  d.  Theology  in  the  United  States  of  America.  437 


the  greatest  of  the  sons  of  men  Robert  Hall.  “  He  in  fact  commenced  a 
new  and  higher  school  in  divinity,  to  which  many  subsequent  writers,  Ers- 
kine,  Fuller,  Newton,  Scott,  Ryland,  the  Milner’s  [Chalmers,  John  Pye 
Smith,  Wardlaw],  Dwight  and  indeed  the  great  body  of  evangelical  authors, 
who  have  since  lived,  have  been  indebted  E.  Bicker steth.  “  His  power 
of  subtile  argument,  perhaps  unmatched,  certainly  unsurpassed  among  men, 
was  joined,  as  in  some  of  the  ancient  mystics,  with  a  character  which  raised 
his  piety  to  fervor  Sir  James  Mackintosh. — On  his  work  on  the  Will,  see 
Bugald  Stewart ;  Isaac  Taylor ,  Introductory  Essay,  repr.  Bost.,  1831  ; 
Prest.  Bay ,  Examination  of  Edwards,  1841  ;  H.  P.  Tappan ,  Rev.  of  Ed¬ 
wards,  3  vols.,  repr.  in  London  in  one  vol. ;  Bledsoe’s  Exam,  of  Edwards, 
1843;  Martin ,  in  New  Englander,  v. ;  Bibl.  Repos.,  1839,  1841. — Samuel 
West,  of  New  Bedford  (b.  1730,  d.  1807),  wrote  Essays  on  Liberty  and  Ne¬ 
cessity,  1793-5,  against  Edwards,  to  which  the  younger  Edwards  replied. 
Stephen  West,  of  Stockbridge,  vindicated  Edwards  in  his  Essay  on  Moral 
Agency,  1772.  On  Edwards  on  the  Nature  of  Virtue,  see  Bellamy,  Works, 
i.  p.  xxix. ;  the  criticism  of  Mackintosh  in  Diss.  on  Ethical  Philos.,  section 
5  ;  Robert  Hall ,  in  Works,  i.  43,  a  note  to  his  Sermon  on  Modern  Infidelity  ; 
Princeton  Review,  1853  (where  it  is  incorrectly  represented  as  Utilitarian)  ; 
E.  A.  Park,  in  Bib.  Sacra,  1853  ;  Ed.  Beecher ,  in  Bib.  Sac.,  1853.  On  his 
work  on  Original  Sin,  see  Christ.  Mo.  Spect.  ( Taylor )  vi.  x.,  and  Beecher's 
Conflict  of  Ages.] 

2  [On  Whitefield,  see  above,  §  275  ;  and  Tracy's  Great  Awakening.] 

3  [ Joseph  Bellamy,  b.  1719,  d.  1790,  at  Bethlem,  Ct. :  True  Religion 
delineated,  against  Antinomians,  1750  ;  Wisdom  of  God  in  Permission  of 
Sin  (as  means  of  greatest  good)  :  Div.  of  Christ ;  Letters  between  Theron 
and  Aspasio,  1759;  Half-Way  Covenant,  1769.  Works,  3,  1811;  2  by 
Cong.  Bd.,  1850.  Comp.  J.  Woodbridge,  in  Lit.  and  Theol.  Rev.  ii.  His 
True  Religion,  Letters,  etc.,  rep.  in  London.] 

4  [ John  Smalley,  Berlin,  Ct.,  1784-1820,  Natural  and  Moral  Inability, 
1760  (one  of  the  best  treatises  on  the  subject) ;  against  Universalism 
(Murray),  1785  ;  Sermons,  2  vols.  Memoir  by  T H.  Skinner ,  Christ.  Mo. 
Spect.  vii.] 

6  [Charles  Backus,  Norwich,  Ct.,  1749-1803.  He  educated  nearly  50 
theol.  students,  and  refused  the  divinity  chairs  in  Dartmouth  and  Yale ;  vari¬ 
ous  Sermons;  Truth  of  the  Bible,  1797  ,  on  Regeneration.] 

6  [Stephen  West,  Stockbridge,  Mass.,  1736-1819:  Moral  Agency,  1772  ; 
Atonement,  1785  ;  Life  of  Hopkins,  1805;  Sermons.  Volition,  he  says,  is  a 
direct  effect  of  the  divine  agency ;  sin  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest 
good  ;  in  these  propositions  he  went  beyond  the  elder  Edwards.] 

1  [Thomas  Prince ,  pastor  of  Old  South  Church,  Boston,  b.  1687,  d. 
1758  :  Chronol.  Hist,  of  N.  E.,  1736-55;  Sermons,  ed.  by  John  Er shine , 
Edbg.  See  Wisner’s  Hist,  of  Old  South  ;  North  Am.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1860  ; 
J.  M.  Manning,  in  Congregational  Quart.,  1860. — Jonathan  May  hew ,  Bos¬ 
ton,  b.  1720,  d.  1766:  on  Justification;  Controversy  with  Apthorp  about 
the  Propag.  Soc. ;  Various  Sermons:  see  Allen’s  Biog.  Diet.,  and  Sprague’s 
Annals. — Thos.  Clap,  Prest.  of  Yale  College,  b.  1703,  d.  1767  :  Hist,  and 
Vind.  of  Doctrines  in  N.  E.,  with  a  Specimen  of  a  New  Scheme,  1755  (the 


438 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism.  ♦ 


new  scheme  was  in  the  works  of  Hutcheson,  Foster,  Taylor,  Campbell,  etc,)  ; 
Nature  and  Foundation  of  Moral  Obligation,  1765,  etc. — Ezra  Stiles ,  Prest. 
Yale,  b.  1727,  d.  1795,  an  opponent  of  the  new  divinity.  Sermons;  Life 
by  Holmes.  See  Fisher's  Hist.  Disc.;  Am.  Qu.  Reg.  viii. ;  Spark's  Am. 
Biog.  xvi. — Samuel  West ,  New  Bedford,  see  note  1.— Chs.  Chauncy ,  of 
Boston,  b.  1705,  d.  1788:  In  his  Seasonable  Thoughts,  1743,  he  opposed 
Whitefield;  1767-1772,  Controversy  on  Episcopacy  with  Chandler;  Salva¬ 
tion  of  All  Men,  1784  (answered  by  the  younger  Edwards)  ;  Fall  and  its 
Consequences,  1785. — Samuel  Mather ,  d.  1785  :  Vita  Franckii,  1733  ; 
Liberties  of  the  Churches,  1738  ;  against  Chauncy’s  Universalism,  1781.] 

9  [ Gilbert  Tennent ,  b.  1703,  d.  1764,  the  revival  preacher,  was  in  unison 
with  Whitefield  and  Edwards;  numerous  Sermons;  Trinity,  1744;  Justifi¬ 
cation,  1745.  See  Alexander's  Hist,  of  Log  College,  1845  ;  Tracy's  Great 
Awakening;  Sprague's  Annals. — Jonathan  Dickinson ,  Prest.  N.  J.  Coll.,  b. 
1688,  d.  1747 ;  Five  Disc,  on  Election,  Original  Sin,  etc.,  1741  (against 
Whitby)  ;  Regeneration,  1743  (against  Waterland)  ;  the  two  last  reprinted 
Edinb.,  1793  ;  Controversies  with  John  Beach  on  Civil  Establishment  of 
Religion,  and  on  Free  Grace  (1736-46).  See  Sprague  and  Allen. — Samuel 
Davies ,  Prest.  N.  J.  Coll.,  b.  1724,  d.  1761.  A  great  preacher;  Sermons  3, 
1765;  5,  1774;  Lond.  5,  1767-71  ;  New  York  3,  1849-51,  with  an  Essay 
by  Barnes  oh  his  Life  and  Times. — Aaron  Durr ,  Prest.  N.  J.  Coll.,  b.  1716, 
d.  1757  :  Supreme  Deity  of  Christ  (against  Emlyn ),  repr.  1791 ;  Sermons. 
See  Green's  Disc.  300-313  ;  Allen  and  Sprague. — John  Witherspoon ,  b. 
1722,  in  Scotland,  d.  1794,  Prest.  N.  J.  Coll. :  Works,  ed.  Rodgers ,  4,  1802  ; 
9  vols.,  Edbg.,  1815;  Moral  Philos.;  Regeneration;  Justif. ;  Lectures  on 
Divinity.  See  Allen  and  Sprague  ;  and  Edwards'  Qu.  Reg.,  1836.] 

9  [a Samuel  Hopkins,  b.  1721,  Great  Barrington,  1740-60,  d.  1803  :  Sys¬ 
tem  of  Theology,  2,  1793,  1811  ;  Works,  3,  Bost.,  1853  ;  Memoir  by  E.  A. 
Park,  2d  ed.,  1854  ;  Sin  through  the  Divine  Interposition  an  Advantage  to 
the  Universe,  1759  ;  Promises  of  Gospel  not  made  to  the  exercises  of  the 
Unregenerate  (against  Mayhew),  1765  ;  Div.  of  Christ,  1768;  True  State 
of  Unregenerate  (against  Mills),  1769;  True  Holiness  (against  Hcmmen- 
way),  1773-91;  Slavery;  the  Millennium,  etc.  See  Ely,  Calvinism  and  Hop- 
kinsianism,  1811  ;  Christ.  Examiner,  xxxiii. ;  Bibl.  Sacra,  x.,  by  E.  Beecher, 
and  Conflict  of  Ages,  by  the  same. — Hopkins  was  opposed  in  respect  to  “  Un¬ 
regenerated  Doings,”  by  Moses  Hemmenway  (pastor  in  Wells,  Me.,  for  51 
years,  1759-1811),  in  two  works,  1772-4  ;  and  by  David  Tap  pan,  Prof,  in 
Harvard  (b.  1753,  d.  1803),  in  a  Discourse  on  the  Character  of  the  Unre¬ 
generate,  1782. — The  points  in  which  the  old  Hopkinsianism  was  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  older  Calvinism  were,  1.  Divine  efficiency  extending  to  all 
acts  (more  sharply  stated  by  Emmons)  ;  2.  Sin,  the  necessary  means  of  the 
greatest  good ;  3.  The  atonement  unlimited,  as  a  provision  ;  4.  Obligation  to 
immediate  repentance  ;  5.  Sharper  distinction  between  natural  and  moral 
ability  and  inability ;  6.  Disinterested  benevolence  (involving  uncondi¬ 
tional  submission,  in  the  form  of  a  willingness  to  be  cast  away  forever,  for 
the  divine  glory)  ;  7.  The  theory  of  the  covenants  resolved  into  a  divine 
constitution  (imputation,  as  a  transfer  of  moral  character,  discredited)  ; 
8.  Prior  to  moral  exercises,  there  is  only  a  divine  constitution,  and  no  m<  ral 


§  2 85,  d.  Theology  in  the  United  States  of  America.  439 


character  (hinted  at  by  Hopkins,  and  developed  by  Emmons).  But  in  the 
exercises,  the  will  was  not  yet  distinguished  from  the  affections.] 

10  [Jonathan  Edwards ,  the  younger,  b.  1745,  d.  1801,  Prest.  Union  Col¬ 
lege,  N.  Y. :  Salvation  of  All  Men  examined  (reply  to  Chauncy)  ;  Liberty 
and  Necessity;  Three  Sermons  on  the  Atonement,  1785,  etc.  Works,  with 
Memoir  by  Try  on  Edivards ,  2,  Andov.,  1842.  He  represents  the  atonement 
as  a  satisfaction  to  the  general  or  public,  not  to  the  distributive,  justice  of 
God.  See  The  Atonement ;  Discourses  and  Treatises  by  Edwards,  Smalley, 
Maxcy,  Emmons,  Griffin,  Burge,  and  Weeks.  With  an  Introd.  Essay  by 
E.  A.  Park,  Boston,  1859,  who  attempts  to  find  hints  of  the  same  view  in 
the  earlier  New  Eng.  divines.] 

11  [Nathaniel  Emmons ,  of  Franklin,  Mass.,  b.  1745,  d.  1840.  Works, 
with  Life,  by  Ide,ffi  vols.,  1842  ;  enlarged,  with  Memoir  by  E.  A.  Park., 

6  vols.,  18513-60.  See  Bib.  Sacra,  vii.,  Theology  of  Emmons,  by  Smalley  ; 
Am.  Qu.  Reg.  xv. ;  New  Englander  [Fitch)  ;  Am.  Bibb  Repos.  2d  s.  viii. 
x. ;  Christ.  Rev.  vii.  viii. ;  Princeton  Rev.  xiv. ;  Christ.  Examiner,  xxxiii. ; 
New  Englander  (Fisher),  1861  ;  Am.  Theol.  Review,  1861. — Among  the 
peculiarities  of  his  divine  efficiency  and  exercise  scheme  were  the  following  : 
God  is  the  universal  cause — the  efficient  cause  of  sinful  as  well  as  holy  acts, 
yet  he  creates  them  free ;  sin  is  not  merely  permitted  but  produced  by 
divine  agency,  yet  man  has  natural  powTer  to  thwart  the  divine  decrees ; 
each  man  is  consituted  a  sinner  in  consequence  of  Adam’s  first  sin  ;  all  sin 
consists  in  sinning — there  is  no  original  sin  ;  true  holiness  demands  uncon¬ 
ditional  submission,  a  willingness  even  to  be  cast  away  ;  every  moral  det  is 
either  perfectly  holy  or  perfectly  sinful;  justification  is  simply  pardon; 
Christians  are  rewarded  in  heaven  for  their  own  holiness.  In  respect  to  the 
nature  of  the  soul,  he  was  understood  as  affirming  that  it  is  a  series  of  exercises. 
In  his  system  there  is  a  singular  commingling  of  the  idealism  of  Berkeley,  supra* 
lapsiarian  Calvinism,  and  natural  ability.  The  scheme  of  absolute  predes¬ 
tination  has  nowhere  been  more  consistently  developed,  nor  the  responsibility 
of  the  sinner,  and  the  claims  of  disinterested  benevolence  more  earnestly  en¬ 
forced.  His  system  contained  sharply  defined,  yet  contradictory  elements, 
which  must  lead  to  a  division. — Samuel  Spring ,  Newburyport,  Mass.,  d. 
1819:  on  Immediate  Coming  of  Christ;  United  Agency  of  God  and  Man 
(in  the-  sense  of  Emmons).  On  the  question  of  Divine  Efficiency,  see 
Christ.  Spect.,  March,  1836;  E.  D.  Griffin ,  The  Div.  Efficiency,  1833, — 
the  Causal  Power  in  Regeneration  Direct ;  the  latter  reviewed  in  Evang. 
Mag.,  Dec.,  1835.] 

12  [Asa  Burton ,  of  Thetford,  Vt.,  b.  1762,  d.  1836  ;  Essays  on  some  of 
the  First  Principles  of  Metaphysicks,  Ethicks  and  Theology,  Portland,  1824. 
Dr.  B.  advocated  the  Taste  Scheme — that  the  essence  of  virtue  or  vice  is 
not  in  exercises,  but  in  the  antecedent  taste  or  disposition.  He,  probably, 
among  the  N.  E.  divines,  first  made  a  sharp  distinction  between  the  affec¬ 
tions  and  the  will.  Judge  Nathaniel  Niles ,  of  West  Fairlee,  Vt.,  (a  student 
of  Bellamy,  d.  1828),  advocated  the  same  system;  he  published  in  1809  an 
acute  Letter  on  the  Power  of  Sinners  to  make  New  Hearts,  1809  ;  The  leading 
Connecticut  divines  were  opposed  to  the  Emmons  scheme  (Bellamy,  Smalley , 
Dwight ,  etc.,  also  Dr.  Woods  ;  see  next  note).  A  similar  position  has  been 


440 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


held,  inclining  in  some  cases  more  decidedly  to  the  literal  acceptance  of  the 
Westminster  Confession,  by  Nathan  Lord  (Prest.  Dartmouth,  on  Justifica¬ 
tion,  Faith,  etc.)  ;  John  Woodbridge  (Hadley)  ;  Heman  Humphrey,  Prest. 
Amherst  Coll.,  d.  1859;  Parsons  CooJce  (Lynn,  Mass.);  Neh.  Adams  (Bos¬ 
ton,  Evenings  with  Doctrines,  I860.)] 

13  \Lconard  Woods,  b.  1774,  d.  1846,  Prof,  in  Andover  from  1808. 
Works,  5  vols.,  Bost.,  1849.  Lectures  on  Theok,  3  vols.  ;  Letters  to  Unita¬ 
rians,  1820  :  Reply  to  Dr.  Ware,  1821  ;  Letters  to  N.  W.  Taylor,  1830  (on 
divine  prevention  of  sin,  and  sin  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good)  ; 
Essay  on  Native  Depravity,  1835  (comp.  Evang.  Mag.,  Nov.  1835)  ;  on 
the  Doctrine  of  Perfection  (against  Mahan).  Comp.  Bib.  Sacra,  viii.  [Hum¬ 
phrey). — In  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  Dr.  Woods  insisted  more  upon  the 
points  of  agreement  between  the  Hopkinsian  theology  and  the  generally  re¬ 
ceived  Calvinism.  See  his  Theology  of  the  Puritans.] 

14  yjimothy  Dwight,  Prest.  of  Yale,  b.  1752,  d.  1817  :  Theology  ex¬ 
plained  and  defended  in  a  Series  of  Sermons,  5  vols.,  181 8  ;  frequent  edi¬ 
tions  in  this  country  and  in  England.  He  inculcated  the  utilitarian  theory 
of  ethics  ;  wrote  against  the  position,  that  the  soul  is  a  series  of  exercises 
(Emmons  ?  or  Jonathan  Edwards  the  younger?)  ;  and  gave  a  temperate  and 
judicious  exposition  of  the  New  England  theology. — Nathan  Strong,  Hart¬ 
ford,  Ct.,  b.  1748,  d.  1816  ;  ed.  Conn.  Theol.  Mag.;  on  Eternal  Misery,  in 
reply  to  Huntington ;  Sermons,  2  vols.  See  Sprague's  Annals. — Jos. 
Lothrop ,  West  Springfield,  Mass.,  1731-1820;  Sermons,  7  vols. — Jesse  Ap¬ 
pleton,  Prest.  Bowd.  Coll.,  d.  1818  :  Theol.  and  Acad.  Lect.,  2,  1837. — Jas. 
Catlin ,  d.  1836  :  Comp,  of  Theology,  1828. — Enoch  Pond,  Bangor;  Baptism  ; 
The  Church  ;  essays  and  reviews.] 

15  Nathaniel  W.  Taylor,  Prof.  Theol.  New  Haven,  b.  1786,  d.  1858  : 
Sermons,  Lects.  on  Moral  Government ;  Essays  in  Revealed  Theology, 
1858-9. — Dr.  Taylor  opposed  Hopkinsianism  on  the  points  above  stated, 
and  advocated  the  positions — that  self-love  is  the  spring  of  all  moral  action  ; 
that  the  sinner  has  natural  ability  (as  power  to  the  contrary)  to  repent; 
that  the  reason  of  the  divine  permission  of  sin  may  be,  that  God  could  not 
(from  the  nature  of  free  agency)  prevent  all  sin  in  a  moral  system.  The 
atonement  was  vindicated  as  a  governmental  scheme. — The  main  works  in 
this  controversy  were :  E.  T.  Pitch  (Prof.  New  Haven),  Disc,  on  Nature, 
of  Sin,  1826  ;  ibid.,  Inq.  into  Nature  of  Sin,  1827.  N.  W.  Taylor,  Con- 
cio  ad  Clerum,  1823 — by  nature  we  became,  not  are,  sinners  (Review  by 
Jos.  Harvey,  ’29) ;  ibid.,  Review  of  Spring  on  Means  of  Regeneration 
(Christ.  Spect.,  1829) — self-love  theory,  and  “  suspension  of  the  evil  principle,” 
in  regeneration.  This  called  out  the  Strictures  of  Bennet  Tyler  (b.  1783,  d. 
1858,  Memoirs  and  Lects.,  ed.  Gale,  1859);  Review  of  Strictures  by  Taylor 
(Christ.  Spect.,  ’30)  ;  Vindication  of  Strictures,  by  Tyler.  Woods ’  Letters 
to  Taylor,  ’30;  Review  by  Taylor  (Christ.  Spect.,  ’30).  Various  Articles  by 
Taylor  and  Tyler ,  in  Spirit  of  Pilgrims,  and  Christ.  Spect.,  1832-3. —  Wil¬ 
bur  Fisk  (Methodist),  on  Predestination  and  Election  (criticising  the  New 
Haven  views),  was  replied  to  by  Fitch,  Christ.  Spect.,  1831  (see  Fisk,  Calv. 
Controversy,  1853.) — Spring,  on  Native  Depravity,  1833  ;  reviewed  by 
Taylor ,  Christ.  Spect.,  1833,  D.  N.  Lord,  Views  in  Theology. —  Chauncey 


§  285;  d.  Theology  in  the  United  States  of  America.  441 


Lee,  Letters  from  Aristarchus  to  Philemon,  1833;  review  of  the  same  in  the 
Evang.  Mag.,  1833. — Harvey ,  on  Theol.  Speculations  in  Conn.,  1832. — See 
( Tyler )  Letters  on  Origin  and  Progress  of  New  Haven  Theology,  N.  Y., 
1837.  Pigeon,  in  Lit.  and  Theol.  Pev.,  v.  vi.  Leonard  Paeon,  Appeal  to 
Cong.  Ministers  in  Conn.,  1840,  Seven  Letters  to  G.  A.  Calhoun,  1840. 
— Edvmrd  Beecher  :  Conflict  of  Ages,  ’53,  and  Concord  of  Ages,  ’59.  In 
these  two  works,  the  theory  of  preexistence  is  applied  to  settle  the  conflicts 
of  the  schools,  and  vindicate  the  honor  of  God.] 

16  [As  early  as  1756,  Emlyn’s  works  were  republished  in  Boston.  Samuel 
Clarke’s  works  were  also  much  read.  In  1785,  King’s  Chapel,  Boston  [Jas. 
Freeman )  altered  its  Liturgy  on  the  Trinity.  Mayhew,  of  Boston,  and 
Gay,  of  Hingham,  were  Unitarians.  The  election  of  Henry  Ware  (b.  1764, 
d.  1845),  to  the  Hollis  professorship,  Harvard  College,  1805,  was  opposed 
on  account  of  his  Unitarian  views  (by  Jed.  Morse ,  b.  1761,  d.  1826,  in  his 
True  Reasons,  1805,  and  Appeal  to  the  Public,  1814).  Hosea  Ballou  (Uni- 
versalist),  in  his  work  on  the  Atonement,  1805,  denied  the  essential  divinity 
of  the  Son.  Noah  Worcester  (b.  1758,  d.  1838),  in  his  Review  of  Testi¬ 
monies  in  Favor  of  Div.  of  Son,  and  his  Bible  News,  1810,  5th  ed.,  1844, 
and  Address  to  Trinit.  Clergy,  1814,  maintained  the  Arian  hypothesis  (like 
Clarke).  T.  Lindsey's  Memoirs,  1812,  were  republ.  in  part  by  Morse,  and 
reviewed  by  Worcester  in  the  Panoplist,  1815.  (The  work  described  the 
silent  progress  of  Unitarianism  in  N.  E. — Helsham,  Review  of  Am.  Uni- 
tarianism,  2d  ed.,  Lond.,  1815.) — The  controversy  became  more  decided 
upon  the  publication  of  W.  E.  Channing’s  sermon  at  the  ordination  of 
Jared  Sparks,  in  Baltimore.  Stuart’s  Letters  to  C.,  1819;  Woods’  Letters 
to  Unit.,  1819;  Henry  Ware,  Letters  to  Trin.  and  Calv.,  1820;  Woods  re¬ 
ply  to  Ware,  and  Ware’s  Answer,  1822  ;  Andrews  Norton,  True  and  False 
Religion,  and  Views  of  Calvinism,  in  Christ.  Disciple  (1820-2);  N.  W. 
Taylor  in  reply,  in  Christ.  Spect.,  1823-4;  Norton ,  Statement  of  Reasons 
for  not  Believing  the  Doctrines  of  Trinit.,  in  Christ.  Disciple,  1819,  1833, 
new  ed.  by  Abbot,  1855.  Sami.  Miller,  Letters  on  Unitarianism;  reply 
by  Sparks,  1821.  See  Ellis,  llalf-Cent.  of  Unit.  Controv.,  1857.  He 
Hemusat,  transl.  from  Rev.  d.  deux  Mondes  in  Christ.  Exam.,  May,  1857. — 
In  their  views  on  the  person  of  Christ,  the  Am.  Unitarians  range  from 
Sabellianism  to  Humanitarianism.] 

17  [  William  Ellery  Channing,  b .  1780,  d.  1842.  Works,  5,  1841  ;  6, 
1846  ;  repr.  Lond.,  and  several  transl.  into  French  and  German.  From 
Hopkins  he  received  the  principle  of  disinterested  benevolence,  without  its 
Hopkinsian  inferences.  Memoir  by  W.  H.  Channing ,  3,  1843.  Comp. 
Westminster  Rev.,  ’50  ( Martineau )  ;  Christ.  Exam.  xiv.  {Dewey),  xlv.  ( Fur¬ 
ness ) ;  Lit.  and  Theol.  Rev.,  i.  (  Withington) ;  Democ,  Rev.,  xii.  ( Bancroft )  ; 
New  Englander,  viii. — Jos.  Buckminster,  d.  1810,  Sermons;  ed.  Griesbach’s 
N.  Test. — Andrew  Norton,  b.  1786,  d.  1853,  Prof,  at  Cambridge  (see  above), 
Genuineness  of  Gospels,  3,  1837-44,  2d  ed.,  ’52  ;  New  transl.  Gospels,  ’55  ; 
Internal  Evid.,  ’55. —  Orville  Dewey,  Discourses,  Controv.  Theol.  etc.,  3, 
1846-7. —  G.  W.  Burnap,  Unitarianism,  1835  ;  Trinity,  1845  ;  Evid.,  1855. 
J.  G.  Palfrey,  Evid.;  1843  ;  Jewish  Scriptures;  Hist.  N.  E.,  1858. — A. 
P.  Peabody,  Christ.  Doctrines,  1844. — Sam.  Osgood,  Christ.  Biog.,  etc. — . 


442 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


W.  H.  Furness,  Jesus  and  bis  Biographers,  1838  ;  Hist.  Jesus,  1850. — • 
H.  W.  Fellows,  Re-statements  of  Christ.  Doctrine,  1860.  Alv .  Lamson, 
Church  of  First  Three  Cent.,  I860.] 

18  [ Horace  Bushnell,  Hartford,  Ct. :  on  Christ.  Nurture,  1847,  new  ed., 
1860  (see  Princeton  Rev.,  1847  ;  Christ.  Exam.,  xliii. ;  New  Englander,  v. ; 
Letters  to  Dr.  B.  by  Dr.  Tyler,  1848;  What  does  Dr.  B.  mean?  1849; 
Contributions  of  C.  C.,  1849)  ;  God  in  Christ,  1849 ;  Christ  in  Theol.,  1851. 
Princeton  Rev.,  1853  ;  Reports  to  Hartford  Central,  and  Fairfield  West 
Assoc.,  1850-3 ;  Christ.  Exam.,  xlvi.  xlvii.)  ;  Nature  and  the  Supernatural, 
1858. — Dr.  B.’s  position  is,  that  the  Trinity  is  in  and  for  the  sphere  of  a 
revelation,  though  there  may  be  an  eternal  ground  for  it  in  the  Godhead. — 
See  also,  A  Biblical  Trinity,  by  Theophilus,  Hartf.,  1850.] 


285,  e. 

[THEOLOGY  AND  PHILOSOPHY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  CONTINUED.] 

[The  New  England  theology  early  extended  its  influence  into  the 
Presbyterian  churches  of  the  Middle  and  Western  States  ( Triangle 
Controversy )F  It  led  to  the  trial  of  Albert  Barnes  and  of  Lyman 
Beecher  for  alleged  heresy/  and  finally  to  the  disruption  of  the 
church  (1837,  Old  and  New  School). 3  The  system- of  Edwards,  in 
its  main  features  had  many  able  advocates  {Ely,  Griffin,  Wilson , 
Bichards,  Skinner,  and  others).4  The  older  Calvinism  was  de¬ 
fended  by  Romeyn ,  Mason,  Green,  Miller,  the  Alexanders,  Bice, 
Breckinridge,  Thornwell,  Hodge,  and  others.5 — Perfectionism 6  was 
deduced  from  the  new  divinity  by  Finney  and  Mahan. — The  discus-  ' 
sion  between  Professors  Park  and  Hodge  brought  the  extreme 
positions  of  the  New  and  Old  School  to  a  definite  statement.7] 

[Though  Locke  on  the  Understanding,  was  the  leading  collegiate 
text-book  in  the  last  century,  yet  the  idealism  of  Berkeley  affected 
many  theological  speculations.8  The  introduction  of  the  Scotch 
philosophy  contributed  largely  to  the  New  Haven  reaction  against 
the  old  Hopkinsianism ;  theories  of  ethics  and  of  the  will  shaped 
the  theological  definitions.  The  literature  of  the  country  has  been 
prolific  in  systems  of  mental  and  moral  philosophy,  and  of  logic,  of 
a  popular  character.9  The  spiritual  philosophy  of  Coleridge ,10  the 
eclecticism  of  Cousin, 11  and  the  transcendental  (and  German)  spec¬ 
ulations12  have  had  their  advocates  ;  while  in  opposition  to  the 
Scotch  school,  other  systems  have  been  framed  on  a  more  indepen¬ 
dent  basis  {Tappan,  HickokP) 

[Most  of  the  denominations  are  represented  by  their  theolog¬ 
ical  periodicals.14  Biblical  learning15  has  been  fostered  by  the 
labors  of  Stuart,  Robinson,  Bush,  Turner,  Hackett,  Barnes,  Hodge, 
Alexander,  Norton,  Noyes,  and  others.  The  best  German  works 


§  2 85,  e.  Theology  and  Philosophy  in  the  United  States.  443 

on  Church  History  have  been  translated,  and  this  department  of 
theology  is  cultivated  with  new  interest.16 

[Besides  the  above  controversies  among  the  Congregationalisms 
and  Presbyterians  (which  have  been  the  most  fruitful  in  a  doctrinal 
point  of  view),  each  denomination  has  had  its  theological  represen¬ 
tatives,  advocating  its  distinctive  tenets  or  polity,  whose  writings 
form  a  large  part  of  the  church  literature  of  the  country.  The 
Episcopal  Church17  is  represented  by  Johnson ,  Chandler ,  Seabury , 
White ,  Hobart ,  Bowden ,  Hopkins ,  Jarvis ,  Hawks ,  Tyng ,  and 
others  ;  the  Baptists 18  by  Backus ,  Benedict ,  Wayland ,  Williams , 
Sears ,  Fuller ,  etc.,  (the  Campbellites)  ;  the  Methodists ,19  by  Asbury , 
Bangs ,  Elliott ,  Olin ,  McClintock ,  Stevens ,  etc. ;  the  Lu¬ 

therans™  by  Muhlenburg ,  Hazelius,  Kurtz,  Mann,  Schmucker,  and 
others  ;  the  German  Reformed,™  by  Harbaugh,  Nevin,  and  Schaff ; 
the  Dutch  Reformed,™  by  Livingston,  Frelinghuysen,  De  Witt , 
Cannon,  Berg,  etc.  ;  the  TJniversalists ,23  by  Winchester,  Ballou, 
Chapin  ;  and  the  Annihilationists,  by  Hudson.  The  Quakers,™ 
were  divided  by  Elias  Hicks.  The  more  fanatical  sects25  (Sha¬ 
kers,  Adventists ,  Spiritualists'),  and  the  Mormons 26  have  also  had 
free  scope,  and  are  dying  out.  On  the  Roman  Catholics ,  see 
§  287,  note  15  ;  on  the  Swedenborgians,  §  278  ;  Irvingites ,  §  285, 
note  6.) 

[In  the  midst  of  all  these  divisions,  the  progress  of  evangelical 
doctrine  in  the  United  States  has  kept  pace  with  the  growth  of  the 
population.  Christianity  is  here  to  work  itself  out  to  its  full  prac¬ 
tical  results,  independently  of  the  aid  of  the  civil  power.  Four 
sources  of  difficulty  affect  its  growth  ;  the  increase  of  Romanism, 
the  inroads  of  infidelity  (both  of  these  chiefly  through  the  foreign 
immigration),  the  institution  of  slavery,  and  the  multiplicity  of 
sects.  All  these  practical  hindrances  raise  questions  of  the  highest 
theoretic  and  theological  interest,  which  the  Protestant  churches  are 
to  press  to  their  solution.] 

1  [ Gardiner  Spring  (see  above,  note  15),  pastor  of  the  Brick  Church, 
N.  Y.,  1810  (Works,  12  vols.,  1854,  sq .,  Attractions  of  Cross;  Glory  of 
Christ,  etc.,  see  note  14.)  Ezra  Styles  Ely  (d.  1860),  Contrast  of  Calvin¬ 
ism  and  Hopkinsianism,  1811.  Samuel  Whelpley  (d.  1817),  The  Triangle, 
1816  (against  limited  atonement,  inability,  and  immediate  imputation).  Jas. 
P.  Wilson ,  Phil.  (d.  1830),  on  Natural  Ability  and  Moral  Inability,  1819. 
The  progress  of  the  New  England  theology  in  the  Presb.  churches  was 
favored  in  the  West  by  the  Plan  of  Union,  1801,  made  with  the  Genl. 
Assoc,  of  Conn.] 

8  [. Albert  Barnes ,  the  commentator,  was  put  upon  trial,  1833,  for  his 
sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salvation,  and  his  Comm,  on  Romans :  again  in 
1835  by  Dr.  Junkin  ;  acquitted  by  the  Assembly,  1836. — Lyman  Beecher , 
Prof,  in  Cincm.,  prosecuted  by  A  L.  Wilson  (d.  1846),  1834-5,  and  ac- 


444 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


quitted  :  see  Wilson’s  Plea,  1837,  and  Beecher’s  Views  of  Theol.  (Works, 
iii.,  1853),  as  developed  in  bis  Trials,  with  Remarks  on  the  Princeton  Re¬ 
view  (on  sin,  ability,  imputation,  etc.) — Geo.  Duffield  on  trial  before  Presb. 
of  Carlisle,  1832-3,  for  his  work  on  Regeneration  ;  complaint  dismissed  in 
the  Assembly.] 

8  A  Memorial  to  the  Assembly,  1834,  specified  nine  doctrinal  errors  cur¬ 
rent  in  the  church.  The  Act  and  Testimony  of  the  Minority  (0.  S.),  1834. 
The  Old  School  had  a  majority,  1835,  and  recommended  the  abrogation  of 
the  Plan  of  Union.  New  School  majority  in  1836  ;  Mr.  Barnes  acquitted. 
In  the  Assembly  of  1837,  the  Plan  of  Union  was  abolished:  4  synods  cut 
off  without  further  trial  (comprising  500  ministers  and  57,724  communi¬ 
cants.).  The  reasons  were,  1.  Opposition  to  the  new  divinity;  2.  to  volun¬ 
tary  societies ;  3.  Demand  for  rigid  subscription;  4.  In  part,  the  question 
of  slavery.  The  Auburn  Convention  (N.  S.),  1837,  adopted  the  Protest 
against  the  act  of  exclusion,  which  also  gives  a  clear  statement  of  the  views 
of  the  New  School.  See  G.  N.  Judd ,  Hist,  of  Division  of  the  Presb. 
Church,  1852;  Z.  Crocker ,  Catastrophe  of  Presb.  Church,  1838. — Among 
the  doctrinal  affirmations  contained  in  the  above  protest  of  the  New  School 
(in  reply  to  charges  of  heresy  on  the  particular  points — sixteen  being  enu¬ 
merated  in  all) — the  following  are  the  most  important :  “  God  permitted  the 
introduction  of  sin,  not  because  he  was  unable  to  prevent  it,  but  for  wise  and 
benevolent  reasons,  which  he  has  not  revealed” . . . .“  By  a  divine  constitution, 
Adam  was  so  the  head  and  representative  of  the  race,  that,  as  a  consequence 
of  his  transgression,  all  mankind  became  morally  corrupt,  and  liable  to 
death,  temporal  and  eternal”. ...  The  “sufferings  and  death”  of  infants, 
“  are  to  be  accounted  for,  on  the  ground  of  their  being  involved  in  the  gen¬ 
eral  moral  ruin  of  the  race  induced  by  the  apostacy”. . .  .“Original  sin  is  a 
natural  bias  to  evil,  resulting  from  the  first  apostacy,  leading  invariably  and 
certainly  to  actual  transgression.  And  all  infants,  as  well  as  adults,  in  orde. 
to  be  saved,  need  redemption  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  regeneration  by 
the  Holy  Ghost”. . .  .“The  sin  of  Adam  is  not  imputed  to  his  posterity  in 
the  sense  of  a  literal  transfer  of  personal  qualities,  acts,  and  demerit ;  but 
by  reason  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  in  his  peculiar  relation,  the  race  are  treated 
as  if  they  had  sinned.  Nor  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  his- 
people  in  the  sense  of  a  literal  transfer  of  personal  qualities,  acts  and  merit ; 
but  by  reason  of  his  righteousness,  in  his  peculiar  relation,  they  are  treated 
as  if  they  were  righteous” ....“  The  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  were 
not  symbolical,  governmental,  and  instructive  only,  but  were  truly  vicarious, 
i,  e.,  a  substitute  for  the  punishment  due  to  sinners.  And  while  Christ  did 
not  suffer  the  literal  penalty  of  the  law,  involving  remorse  of  conscience  and 
the  pains  of  hell,  he  did  offer  a  sacrifice,  which  infinite  wisdom  saw  to  be 
a  full  equivalent.  And  by  virtue  of  this  atonement,  overtures  of  mercy  are 
sincerely  made  to  the  race,  and  salvation  secured  to  all  who  believe”* .  . . 
“  All  believers  are  justified,  not  on  the  ground  of  personal  merit,  but  solely 
on  the  ground  of  the  obedience  and  death,  or,  in  other  words,  the  righteous¬ 
ness  of  Christ”. ...“  While  all  such  as  reject  the  Gospel  of  Christ  do  it, 
not  by  coercion,  but  freely — and  all  who  embrace  it,  do  it,  not  by  coercion, 


§  2 85;  e.  Theology  and  Philosophy  in  the  United  States.  445 

but  freely — the  reason  why  some  differ  from  others  is,  that  God  has  made 
them  to  differ.” 

4  [On  Ely  and  Wilson,  see  note  18.  Edw.  D.  Griffin,  Prest.  Williams 
Coll.,  b.  mo,  d.  1837  :  Life  by  W.  B.  Sprague,  1839  ;  see  also  Durfee's 
Hist.  Williams  Coll.;  Sermons;  on  Div.  Efficiency,  see  note  10;  Humble 
Attempt  to  Reconcile  Differences  on  the  Atonement,  1819  (rep.  by  Cong., 
Bd.,  1859)  ;  Park-street  (Boston)  Lectures,  1813. — James  Richards ,  Prof. 
Theoh,  Auburn,  d.  1843.  Lectures,  with  Life,  by  Gridley,  1843. — George 
Duffield,  Detroit:  Regeneration,  1832;  on  Prophecy  and  Millennium. — 
N.  S.  S.  Reman,  Troy  :  Episcopal  Contro. ;  Discourses ;  Atonement  (see 
Princeton  Essays,  \.)~Samuel  H .  Cox,  Quakerism  not  Christ. ;  ed.  Bower’s 
Popes;  Remarkable  Interviews. — Thos.  H.  Skinner:  Aids  to  Preaching; 
Sermons  ;  transl.  of  Vinet,  etc.] 

5  \J.  B.  Romeyn ,  New  York,  d.  1825  :  Sermons,  2  vols. — John  M.  Mason , 
d.  1829  (distinguished  as  a  preacher) ;  Works,  4  vols.,  on  Episcopacy;  the 
Church;  Communion,  etc. — Ashbel  6rrm2,  d.  1848 :  ed.  Christ.  Advocate; 
Hist.  N.  J.  College;  Lects.  on  Cat.  2,  1841;  Discourses. — S.  Stanhope 
Smith ,  Prest.  N.  J.  Coll.,  d.  1812:  Human  Species,  1788  ;  Evidences, 
1809;  Moral  Phil.;  Nat.  and  Rev.  Religion. — Sami.  Miller,  Princeton,  d. 
1850  :  Retrospect  18th  Cent.,  1801  ;  Order  of  Ministry,  1807 ;  Unitarian- 
ism  (Sparks),  1821;  Sonship  of  Christ  (Stuart),  1823. — Archibald  Alex - 
ander,  Princeton,  d.  1851:  Evidences;  Justif. ;  Canon;  Moral  Phil.;  Hist. 
Israelites. — John  H.  Rice,  Va.,  d.  1831  :  Pamphleteer,  1820  ;  ed.  Ya.  Evang. 
Mag. — Thos.  Smyth,  S.  C.,  on  Presb.  and  Prelacy ;  the  Trinity. — Jas.  W. 
Alexander ,  New  York,  d.  1859  :  Discourses  and  essays. — Ah  L.  Rice,  Divine 
Sovereignty ;  R.  C.  Controv.,  etc. — J.  U.  Thornwell,  S.  C.,  Apocrypha ; 
theological  essays  and  reviews. — R.  J.  Breckinridge,  Ky.,  Knowledge  of  God, 
Objective  and  Subjective,  2,  N.  Y.,  1858-9. —  Charles  Hodge,  Princeton  : 
Essays  and  Reviews,  1857  ;  Commentaries;  ed.  Princeton  Review. — A.  A. 
Hodge,  Outlines  of  Theoh,  1860. — Saynl,  J.  Baird,  The  First  Adam  and  the 
Second:  the  Elohim  Revealed,  1860  ;  against  immediate  and  antecedent 
imputation;  see  Princeton  Rev.,  April,  1860  ;  So.  Presb.  Quart.  (Thorn- 
well),  1860  ;  Baird’s  Rejoinder  to  Princeton,  1860. — Griffin ,  Geo.,  a  lawyer 
of  N.  Y.,  d.  1860,  in  a  work  on  the  Sufferings  of  Christ,  2d  ed.,  1846,  ad¬ 
vocated  the  view  that  the  divine  nature  suffered.] 

8  [ Asa  Mahan,  Oberlin  :  Christ.  Perfection ;  Woods’  Reply,  see  above, 
and  Am.  Bib.  Rep.,  2d  s.  i.  ii.  iv. ;  Princeton  Rev.  xiii.  xiv.  C.  G.  Finney, 
Oberlin  :  Lectures  on  Revivals,  13th  ed.,  1840  ;  Sermons,  1839  ;  Lects.  on 
Syst.  Theoh,  new  ed.  by  Bedford,  1851.  See  Princeton  Rev.  (Hodge),  1847; 
Rand,  in  Volunteer,  and  New  Divinity  Tried,  and  Vindication,  1832.] 

7  [ Edwards  A.  Park  :  The  Theology  of  the  Intellect  and  of  the  Feelings ; 
a  Discourse  before  the  Convention  of  Cong.  Ministers  of  Mass.,  1850  (Bib. 
Sacra,  vii.) ;  Remarks  on  Bibl.  Repert.  (Bib.  Sac.  viii.) ;  Unity  amid  Diver¬ 
sities  of  Belief  (Bib.  Sac.  viii.) ;  New  England  Theol.  (ix.).  Chas.  Hodge , 
three  articles  in  Princeton  Rev.,  reprinted  in  his  Essays  and  Reviews,  p. 
529,  sq. — Review  of  Prof.  Park’s  Disc,  in  Lit.  and  Theoh  Rev.,  1850. — 
Daniel  Dana,  Remonstrance  to  the  Trustees  of  Phillips  Acad.,  1853. — » 
Review  of  Dr.  Dana's  Remonstrance  by  a  Layman^  1853. — Views  in  New 


446 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Eng.  Theology,  Nos.  1,  2,  Boston,  1859. — The  three  main  points  of  New 
England  theology,  in  Professor  Park’s  view,  are  “  that  sin  consists  in  choice, 
that  onr  natural  power  equals,  and  that  it  also  limits  our  duty.”  The  oppos¬ 
ing  position  was,  that  the  older  New  England  divines  did  not  hold  these 
three  principles  in  this  unlimited,  and  abstract  form  ;  and  that  they  cannot 
properly  be  exalted  to  tbe  rank  of  essential  points  in  a  system  of  Christian 
theology.] 

8  '[Berkeley' s  (see  §  285,  a ,  note  16)  speculations  were  a  frequent  theme 
of  discussion.  His  theory  was  adopted  by  Samuel  West,  of  New  Bedford, 
and  by  Samuel  Johnson  (who  became  an  Episcopalian,  see  note  17,  below)  ; 
and  his  influence  can  be  distinctly  traced  in  tbe  works  of  Stephen  West  and 
of  Emmons.] 

9  [  Witherspoon  and  S.  Stanhope  Smith ,  wrote  on  Moral  Philosophy. 
All  the  leading  New  England  divines  elaborated  the  theory  of  ethics  (Ed¬ 
wards,  Hopkins,  Emmons,  Burton,  Dwight,  Taylor).  J.  Macpherson ,  Moral 
Phil.,  Phila.,  d.  1791. — F.  JBeasley ,  d.  ’48,  Search  after  Truth,  ’22. — Jasper 
Adams ,  d.  ’41,  Moral  Phil.,  ’37 .—Chs.  J.  C.  Follen ,  d.  1840  (a  German), 
Works,  5,  ’41,  on  Moral  Phil,  and  Psychology. — T.  C.  Upham,  Bowd.  Coll., 
Mental  Phil.,  The  Will,  etc. — Jas.  Richards,  Mental  and  Moral  Phil. — R. 
II.  Bishop,  d.  ’55,  Logic,  ’33  ;  Science  of  God,  ’39. — Jeremiah  Bay,  Prest. 
Yale,  on  Edwards  on  Will,  ’41  ;  on  Self-Determining  Power,  ’49. — Francis 
Way  land,  Moral  Phil,  (numerous  editions)  ;  Intel.  Phil.,  ’44  ;  Pol.  Econ. — 
Archibald  Alexander ,  Moral  Science,  ’52. — S.  A.  Sawyer,  Mental  Phil.,  ’39. 
— Francis  Bowen,  Cambr.,  Critical  Essays,  ’42 ;  Ethical  and  Metaph. 
Science,  ’47.- — Jas.  Walker,  Prest.  Cambr.,  ed.  Reid  and  Stewart. — F.  E. 
Brewster,  Phil.  Hum.  Nature,  Phila.,  1851. — R.  Hildreth,  Morals,  ’44. — 
Jos.  Haven,  Chicago,  Mental  Phil.,  ’57  ;  Moral  Phil.,  ’59. — H.  Winslow, 
Moral  Phil.,  ’56. — J.  L.  Bagg,  Elements  of  Moral  Science,  1860. — Henry 
Carleton,  Liberty  and  Necessity,  Phil.,  1857. —  W.  B.  Wilson,  Logic,  1856. 
— J.  T.  Champlin,  Intel.  Phil.,  1859. — Samuel  Tyler ,  Baconian  Phil.,  ’46  ; 
Essays,  ’56. — Coppee,  Logic,  1857.] 

10  [ Coleridge's  Friend  and  Aids  to  Reflection  were  republished  1831-40 

with  an  able  Preliminary  Essay,  by  Prest.  Jas.  Marsh,  Burlington,  Vt.  (b. 
1794,  d.  1842  :  Remains,  ed.  by  Torrey,  2d  ed.,  1845:  Systematic  Arrange¬ 
ment  of  Knowledge ;  Remarks  on  Psychology,  on  the  Will  of  the  Spiritual 
Principle  in  Man).  Coleridge's  Works,  ed.  by  W.  G.  T.  Shedd  (Andover), 
who  has  also  published  Lects.  on  Phil,  of  Hist.,  1850  ;  Discourses  and 
Essays,  1856.  [J.  Tracy\  Essay  on  Christ.  Philos.,  Andov.,  1848.] 

11  [ Cousin ,  Introd.  to  Hist,  of  Phil.,  transl.  by  Linberg,  Bost,  1832  ; 
Course  of  Mod.  Phil.,  by  0.  W.  Wight ,  2,  1852-4;  Philos,  of  Beautiful, 
by  J.  C.  Baniel ,  1849  ;  Psychology,  by  C.  S.  Henry,  4th  ed. :  Selections, 
by  Geo.  Ripley  (in  Phil.  Miscl.),  1838.  See  North  Am.  53  (Bowen),  85  ; 
Brownson,  in  Christ.  Exam.,  21 ;  Am.  Qu.  Rev.,  10.  Bay  on  Cousin’s  Psy¬ 
chology  in  Christ.  Qu.  Spect.,  7. — C.  S.  Henry  has  also  publ.  Comp.  Christ. 
Antiq.,  ’37  ;  Moral  Phil.  Essays,  ’39  ;  Epitome  of  Hist.,  Phil.,  from  French, 
2,  1845. — Asa  Mahan,  Intel.  Phil.,  new  ed.,  ’54  ;  Logic,  ’57 ;  Moral  Phil., 
’48 ;  The  Will.] 

12  [The  transcendental  philosophy  led  to  a  controversy  between  Andrews 


§  285,  e.  Theology  and  Philosophy  in  the  United  States.  447 

Norton  and  Geo.  Ripley  ;  Ripley ,  Disc,  on  Phil,  of  Religion,  1836  ;  Norton , 
The  Latest  Form  of  Infidelity,  1839  ;  Ripley ,  Letter  on  the  same  (including 
a  View  of  the  Opinions  of  Spinoza,  Schleiermacher,  and  De  Wette),  1840  ; 
Norton ,  Remarks  on  the  same. — Comp,  on  Transcendentalism,  Princeton 
Rev.  xi.  xii. ;  Am.  Bib.  Rep.,  3d  s.  i. ;  Christ.  Exam.,  xxi.  xxii.  [Bowen)  ; 
Brownson’s  Quart.,  ii. ;  New  Englander,  i. — A.  Kavfmann ,  transl.  BocJc- 
shammer,  on  the  Will,  1835. — Stallo ,  General  Principles  of  Philos,  of  Na¬ 
ture  (Schelling,  Oken,  Hegel),  Bost.,  1848. — F.  A.  Rauch  (Mercersburg), 
Psychology,  1835. — E.  V.  Gerhart,  Philos,  and  Logic,  1858. — This  general 
transcendental  movement  became  deistic  in  Theodore  Parker  (d.  1859  :  Ser¬ 
mons  on  Theism  ;  Miscellanies  ;  of  Religion ;  Popular  Theology  ;  Addresses) ; 
and  pantheistic  in  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  (Essays,  two  series ;  Addresses ; 
Poems;  Representative  Men;  Conduct  of  Life). — J.  W.  Miles,  Philosophic 
Theology,  ’49  ;  Ground  of  Morals,  ’52. — Henry  James ,  Nature  of  Evil,  ’55  ; 
Christianity  the  Logic  of  Creation,  ’57.] 

33  \Henry  P.  Tappan,  Chancellor  of  Univ.  Michigan,  Review  of  Edwards, 
3  ;  Logic,  1844  and  1857. — Laurens  P.  Hickok,  Union  Coll.,  Rational  Psy¬ 
chology,  1849,  2d  ed.,  1860;  Science  of  the  Mind  in  Consciousness,  1854; 
Moral  Philos.;  Christian  Cosmology,  1858 — The  general  method  of  Kant, 
with  positive  and  Christian  results.  See  Lewis,  in  Bib.  Sacra,  1850,  1851  ; 
Christian  Remembrancer,  Juty,  1853  ;  New  Englander,  Feb.,  1857  ;  Prince¬ 
ton  Rev.,  1859  ;  Am.  Theol.  Rev.,  I860.] 

14  [Conn.  Evang.  Mag.  (Backus),  1806-7  ;  Panoplist  (Morse),  1806,  sq. ; 
Christian  Disciple,  1813-24  (Ware),  since  1824,  the  Christ.  Examiner 
(Unit.),  now  ed.  by  Hedge . — Christ.  Spect.,  Monthly,  1819-28  ;  quarterly  to 
1834,  New  Haven;  Spirit  of  Pilgrims  (Cong.),  1829-33;  Mag.  of  Ref. 
Dutch  Church,  1826-30  ;  Princeton  Repository,  Presb.  (Hodge),  since  1849  ; 
Am.  Qu.  Obs.  (H.  H.  Edwards),  1833-4 ;  Christ.  Rev.  (Bapt.),  since  1836 ; 
Lit.  and  Theol.  Rev.  (L.  Woods),  1834-9;  Meth.  Qu.,  4  series,  since  1819  ; 
Universalist  Qu.,  since  1844  ;  So.  Meth.  Qu.,  since  1847  ;  Church  Rev. 
(Episc.),  since  1848  ;  Evangel.  Rev.  (Lutheran),  since  1849;  Deutsche 
Kirchenfreund,  monthly,  since  1847  ;  Theol.  and  Lit.  Journal  (Lord),  since 
1840  ;  Biblical  Repository  (Robinson  and  Edwards),  Andov.,  1831-7,  New 
York  (Peters,  Agnew,  Sherwood),  1837  to  1850  ;  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  i.  1843 
(Robinson),  1844,  sq.  (Park,  Taylor)  ;  New  Englander  (New  Haven)  since 
1843;  Brownson’s  Quart.,  since  1844  Rom.  Cath. ;  Southern  Presb.  (Col¬ 
umbia,  S.  C.),  since  1848;  Presb.  Quart.  ( Wallace),  Phil.,  since  1852  ;  Prot. 
Episc.  Quart.,  N.  Y.,  since  1854  ;  Free  Will  Baptist  Quart.,  since  1857  ; 
Cong.  Quart.,  1859  ;  Am.  Theol.  Rev.,  1859;  Danville  Quart.  (Presb.), 
1861 ;  Evang.  Rev.  (Ref.  Dutch,  Berg),  1860  ;  United  Presb.  Quart.,  1860; 
Boston  Review  (Cong.),  1861.] 

16  [ Moses  Stuart,  Prof.  Andover,  1810-1852;  Heb.  Gram.,  1821,  6  edi¬ 
tions  ;  Chrestomathy ;  Ep.  to  Hebr.,  ’27,  3d  ed.,  Robbins ,  ’59 ;  Romans, 
’32,  3d  ed.,  Robbins ;  Notes  to  Hug,  ’36  ;  New  Test.  Gram.;  Apocalypse,  2, 
’45;  O.  Test.  Canon,  ’45;  Miscel.,  ’46;  Daniel,  ’50;  Eccles.,  ’51;  Pro¬ 
verbs,  ’52 ;  Letters  to  Channing  and  Miller  (on  Eternal  Generation,  ’22)  j 
Diss.  on  Original  Lang,  of  Bible,  2d  ed.,  ’27  ;  Transl.  of  Gesenius’  Hebr. 
Gram.,  and  Defence  of  the  same,  ’47. — Edward  Robinson,  Prof,  in  Andov., 


448 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


1830,  in  New  York,  ’37 ;  Winer’s  Grain.;  Wahl’s  Cl  avis,  ’25  ;  Buttmann’s 
Gram.,  ’33  ;  N.  Test.  Lex.,  ’36  and  ’50  ;  Hebr.  Lex. ;  Bibl.  Res.  in  Palest. 
3,  ’43,  new  ed.,  ’55  ;  Harmony  of  Gospels,  ’45  ;  Eng.  Harm.,  ’46. — Isaac 
Nordheimer ,  Hebr.  Gram.,  ’42. —  George  .Bush,  d.  1859  :  Script.  Illustrat. ; 
Millennium,  ’32  ;  Hebrew  Gr.,  ’35  ;  Anastasis,  ’44  ;  Pent.  Josh.,  ’40  to  ’58  ; 
ed.  New  Jerusl.  Mag. — Sami.  H.  Turner  (Prot.  Episc.),  Jahn  and  Planck’s 
Introd. ;  Jewish  Rabbies,  ’47  ;  Prophecy,  ’52  ;  Rom.,  Hebr.,  new  ed.,  ’59. — 
Elias  Biggs  (Constple.),  Manual  of  Chaldee,  ’24,  new  ed.,  ’56. — B.  B. 
Backet t ,  ed.  Winer’s  Chaldee  Gram. ;  Acts,  2d  ed.,  ’52. — Albert  Barnes , 
Comm,  on  New  Test. ;  Job;  Isaiah,  etc. —  Charles  Bodge,  Ep.  to  Romans, 
’35,  abridged,  ’36;  15th  ed.  Phil.,  ’56;  Ephes.,  ’56';  1  Cor.,  ’57  ;  Hist. 
Presb.  Church,  2,  ’40  ;  Way  of  Life,  30th  ed.,  ’56,  etc. — Jos.  Addison 
Alexander,  Princeton,  b.  1809,  d.  1860  (Princeton)  :  Isaiah,  2,  ’46-7  ; 
Psalms,  3,  ’50  ;  Essays  on  Prim.  Church. — B.  J.  Bipley  (Bapt.),  Gospels ; 
Rom.  ;  Acts. — J.  J.  Owen  (N.  Y.),  Gospels,  1858-60. — D.  D.  Whedon , 
Gospels  Matth.,  Mk.,  1860. — F.  G.  Bibbard,  Psalms. — Justin  Edivards,  d. 
1853,  New  Test. — Jas.  Strong ,  Harm,  and  Expos,  of  Gospels. — G.  B.  Noyes 
(Cambr.),  Job,  Psalms,  Prophets. — Andrews  Norton  (Carnbr.),  New  transl. 
Gospels,  Genuineness  of  Gospels,  ’52-’55. — M.  Jacobus,  Gospels. — F.  S. 
Sampson,  Hebr.,  ’56. — T.  V.  Moore,  Haggai,  etc.,  56. — On  Apocalypse,  D .  N. 
Lord,  AT,  Macdonald ;  Weeks,  ’51. — Abp.  Kenrick ,  New  Test,  transl. 
from  Vulgate,  ’47— ’51. — T.  J.  Conant,  Rochester,  Rodiger’s  Gesenius ;  transl. 
of  Job  and  New  Test,  (in  progress).  A.  C.  Kendrick ,  Olshausen’s  Comm, 
revised,  6  vols.,  1858.] 

16  [ Neander ,  transl.  by  Prof.  Torrey,  5  vols.,  1840-54.  Base  by  Blu- 
menthal  and  Wing,  ’55. — MosheirrCs  Institutes,  3,  1832,  frequent  editions, 
and  Commentaries  on  First  Three  Cent.,  ’51,  by  Jas.  Murdock  (d.  1856)  ; 
also  transl.  Munsclier1  s  Dogmat.  Hist.,  ’30,  and  the  Syriac  N.  Test.,  ’61. — 
Guericke,  i.  by  G.  W.  T.  Shedd. — Kurtz,  Sacred  Hist,  by  Schaeffer,  ’57. — 
Gieseler,  Hist,  to  Ref.  by  F.  Cunningham,  3,  ’42  ;  revision  of  Davidson’s 
Edinb.  Version,  by  B.  B.  Smith,  continued  to  1648,  4  vols.,  New  York, 
1857-61. — P.  Schaff,  Apostol.  Church,  ’53,  Hist,  of  Church,  i.,  ’58. — » 
Coleman's  Ancient  Christ.,  ’52. — M.  Mahan,  Church  Hist,  of  First  Three 
Cent.,  I860.] 

17  [The  Church  of  England  was  established  in  the  southern  colonies;  in  Mary¬ 
land  after  the  decline  of  the  Roman  Catholic  influence  (1692)  ;  and  in  New 
York  after  its  cession  by  the  Dutch,  (1693).  Frequent  projects  of  appointing 
bishops  in  the  other  colonies  failed.  The  first  controversy  in  New  England 
was  (1720)  between  John  Checkley  (d.  1753),  and  Ed.  Wigglesworth 
(Prof.  Cambr.,  d.  1765).  In  1722  Tim.  Cutler  (d.  1756),  S.  Johnson  and 
others  in  Ct.  became  Episcopalians.  The  latter  wrote  in  defence  of  the  Epis. 
Church  (1733) ;  A  Syst.  of  Morality,  ’46  ;  Hebr.  Gram.,  ’67  ;  d.  Pres.  King’s 
Coll.,  ’72.  Noah  Bobart  (Fairfield,  Ct.,  d.  1773),  wrote:  Serious  Address  to 
the  Episcopal  Separation,  ’48  ;  Second  Address,  ’51.  J.  Wetmore ,  (d.  ’60) : 
Vindication  of  Professors  of  Church  of  England,  ’47  ;  and  Rejoinder  to  Ho¬ 
bart.  J.  Beach  (d.  1782):  Answer  to  Hobart ’49 ;  Vindication,  ’56.  Prest. 
Dickinson ,  Reasonableness  of  Nonconformity, ’38  ;  Second  Vindication,  etc. 
(see  Alien1  s  Biog.  Diet.)  In  1763,  East  Apthorp,  controversy  with  Dr. 


§  285,  e.  Theology  and  Philosophy  in  the  United  States.  449 

Mayhew ,  on  the  Plans  of  the  Propag.  Society  ;  May  hew,  on  Conduct  of  the 
Society,  and  two  Defences,  1763-5.  The  Abp.  of  Canterb.  ( SecJcer )  replied 
to  Mayhew.  T.  B.  Chandler  (d.  1790)  :  Appeal  on  behalf  of  Chh.  of  Eng., 
’67;  Defence,  ’69,  ’71.  Chauncy  of  Boston,  Remarks  on  Bp.  of  LlandafFs 
Sermon,  ’67  ;  Answer  to  Chandler,  ’68,  ’70  ;  Complete  View  of  Episcopacy, 
’71.  After  the  Revolution,  episcopal  ordination  was  obtained  in  Scotland, 
1781,  by  Samuel  Seabury  (d.  1796),  in  England  by  Bp.  White  (d.  1836). 
On  the  proposed  alteration  in  the  Liturgy,  see  §  222,  note  6.  In  1811,  Bp. 
Hobart  of  N.  Y.  (d.  1830),  advocated  High  Church  claims  in  his  Companion 
for  the  Altar  ;  J.  M.  Mason ,  replied  in  Christ.  Mag.  ;  Hobart ,  Apology  for 
Apostolic  Order.  John  Bowden  (d.  1817),  advocated  Episcopacy  against 
Stiles ,  1778;  against  Miller,  1806-10  ( Miller's  Order  of  Ministry,  1807; 
reply  to  Bowden,  1810.)  Bp.  H.  U.  Onderdonk  (Phil.,  d.  1858),  Episco¬ 
pacy  tested  by  Script.,  1830  ;  reply  by  Albert  Barnes,  1844.  Wainwright 
and  Potts'  discussion  on  the  theme  ;  a  Church  without  a  Bishop.  (Comp. 
Woods  on  Episc.  ’44;  Smyth,  Prelacy;  Coleman's  Prim.  Church;  Jos.  A, 
Alexander,  Prim.  Church  Officers,  ’51).  The  Oxford  Controversy  had  its 
echoes  in  America.  Between  1815  and  1858,  38  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy 
went  to  Rome  (Bp.  Ives,  1852).  Bp.  Hopkins  of  Vt.,  wrote  on  Church  of 
Rome,  ’37,  and  Novelties,  ’44  ;  Confessional,  ’50 ;  End  of  Controversy,  ’54. 
Bp.  Mcllvaine,  on  Justif.,  ’40  ;  Oxf.  Div.,  ’41 ;  Apostolic  Office,  ’55  (see 
Princeton  Rev.,  ’56).  Other  Episcopal  Divines,  S.  F.  Jarvis  (d.  ’51),  Re¬ 
gen.,  ’21  ;  Prophecy,  ’43  ;  Introd.  to  Chh.  Hist., ’45  ;  Reply  to  Milner,  ’47  ; 
Chh.  of  Redeemed,  ’50.  Bp.  Ravenscroft ,  d.  1730:  Disc,  and  Controv. 
with  J.  H.  Rice.  Samuel  Seabury,  Continuity  of  Chh.  of  Eng.,  ’55  ;  Am. 
Slavery  Justified,  ’60.  J.  0.  Ogilby  (Prof.  N.  Y.,  d.  ’51),  on  the  Chh.  and 
Lay  Baptism,  ’44.  F.  L.  Hawks,  N.  Y.,  Eccl.  Hist,  of  Md.  and  Va. ;  Egypt ; 
Chris.  Antiq.  Murray  Hoffman  (jurist)  Canon  Law,  ’51.  John  S.  Stone, 
The  Mysteries  opened  (on  Baptismal  Regeneration  and  the  Real  Presence), 
1844  ;  The  Church  Universal,  ’46.  Stephen  H.  Tyng,  Law  and  Gospel, 
’48  ;  Israel  of  God  ;  Christ  is  all,  1849.] 

18  [The  Baptist  Controversy  is  perpetually  renewed.  Among  the  leading 
divines  of  this  denomination  are  :  Isaac  Backus,  b.  1724,  d.  1806,  Hist,  of 
Baptists,  3  vols.,  to  1801 ;  Mem.  by  A.  Hovey,  1858.  David  Benedict , 
Hist.  Bapt.,  new  ed.,  ’48  ;  Compend.  Eccies.  Hist. ;  Fifty  Years  among  Bap¬ 
tists,  ’60.  Jas.  Maxcy  (Prest.  Brown  Univ.,  d.  ’20),  Disc,  and  Remains 
(Elton).  Francis  Wayland  (Prest.  of  Brown),  b.  1796  ;  Sermons;  Moral 
and  Intel.  Phil. ;  Pol.  Econ. ;  on  Slavery  [Fuller)  ;  Principles  of  Baptists, 
’56,  etc.  Wm.  R.  Williams  (N.  Y.),  Miscel. ;  Rel.  Progress ;  Lord’s 
Prayer,  etc.  Barnas  Sears  (Prest.  Brown),  on  Education ;  Addresses  and 
Reviews.  R.  Fuller  on  Baptism,  Slavery  [Wayland),  Close  Communion, 
’49.  T.  F.  Curtis,  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  ’57.  S.  S.  Cutting, 
Hist.  Vindication,  ’59. — The  Campbellites  are  named  from  Alex.  Campbell, 
editor  of  Christ.  Bapt., ’23-’29,  of  Millennial  Harbinger,  since ’30  ;  Christ. 
System ;  Baptism ;  Infidelity  refuted  by  Infidels ;  Public  Debates  with 
Walker,  Me  Alla,  Purcell  and  Rice;  Debate  with  Owen  on  Socialism.  See 
J.  B.  Jeter,  Campbellism  Examined,  1858.] 

u  [In  1784  the  First  Methodist  Conference  was  organized  under  Wesley’s 


450 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


rales.  In  I860,  the  total  of  Methodists  in  America,  was  1,880,269.  Fran* 
cis  Asbury,  d.  1816,  preached  17,000  Sermons;  Journals,  3  vols. ;  Life  by 
Strickland,  ’59.  Bp.  Emory,  Defence  of  Fathers  ;  Episc.  Controversy  ;  Hist. 
Discipline.  K.  Bangs ,  on  Meth.  Ep.  Church ;  Original  Church  of  Christ ; 
Sanctif.  Cks .  Elliott ,  Delineation  of  Rom.  Catholicism,  2,  N.  Y.  (3d  ed., 
Bond.,  ’5l)  ;  Bible  and  Slavery;  Baptism, ’34  ;  Hist,  of  Secession  of  South¬ 
ern  Chh.  G.  Peek,  Christ.  Perfection  ;  Rule  of  Faith.  W.  Fisk ,  d.  1830  ; 
Predest.  and  Elect,  (against  Fitch).  Stephen  Olin ,  d.  ’51,  Sermons  and 
Addresses.  J.  McClintock, Temporal  Power  of  Pope,  ’55  ;  ed.  Classical  Works. 
Abel  Stevens ,  Chh.  Polity;  Memorials  of  Method. ;  Rel.  Movement  in  18th 
cent.,  i.,  ii.,  1858-60.] 

30  [On  the  early  German  emigration  to  United  States,  see  W.  M.  Rey¬ 
nolds,  in  Evang.  Review,  July,  1861.  Henry  Melchior  Muhlenberg,  d. 
1787;  Reports  in  Hallische  Hachrichten,  1741-85  ;  Life  by  Stoever.  The 
Lutherans  are  divided  into  (1),  the  strict  Old  Lutheran — controversy  1850, 
between  Missouri  and  Buffalo  Synods  ( Lober ,  Walt  her)  ;  (2.)  Moderate 
Lutheranism  of  the  Penn,  synod;  (3.)  Evangelical  Lutherans  (Gettysburg). 
The  American  Lutherans  generally  reject  the  strict  doctrine  of  consubstan- 
tiation  ;  the  discipline  is  stricter  than  in  the  European  churches ;  the  gov¬ 
ernment  more  Presbyterian. — For  a  full  literature  of  the.  denomination,  see 
Evang.  Review,  April,  1861. — J.  C.  Kunze ,  d.  1802,  orientalist. — J.  G. 
Lochmann ,  d.  1826,  Hist.  Lutheran  Doctrine,  1818. — J.  Bachmann  (S.  C.), 
Defence  of  Luther;  Unity  of  Race,  etc. — E.  L.  Hazelius,  Hist,  of  Church, 
i.  ’42 ;  of  Am.  Luth.,  ’46  ;  Life  of  Stilling.  C.  W.  Shaffer,  Early  Hist. 
Luth.,  ’57. — B.  Kurtz ,  Why  a  Luth.,  ’43  ;  Inf.  Bapt.,  ’48.  W.  J.  Mann, 
Luth.  in  Am.,  ’57  ;  Plea  for  Augsb.  Conf.,  ’56.  J.  G.  Morris,  Life  of 
Arndt,  ’53  ;  on  Martin  Behaim,  ’55.  J.  A.  Seiss,  on  Hebrews,  ’46  ;  Bap¬ 
tist  System,  2d  ed.,  ’58  ;  Gospel  in  Lev.,  ’60  ;  Digest  of  Doctrine,  ’57.  A. 
and  S.  Henkel,  Transl.  of  Luther  on  Sacraments,  ’53  ;  of  Book  of  Concord, 
’54.  S.  S.  Schmucker  (Prof.  Gettysburg),  Storr  and  Flatt  transl.,  2,  ’26  ; 
Appeal  on  Union,  ’38 ;  Psychology,  ’42 ;  Am.  Luth.  Church,  ’51  ;  Lutheran 
Manual,  ’55  ;  Am.  Lutheranism  Vindicated  (reply  to  Mann),  ’56  ;  Formula 
of  Gov.  and  Discipline.  See  J.  A.  Brown,  The  Hew  Theology,  ’57,  and 
Schmucker  in  reply.] 

21  [The  German  Reformed  were  at  first  united  with  the  Dutch. — Dr. 
Mayer,  d.  1849,  Hist,  of  Ref.  Church. — H.  Harbaugh,  Fathers  of  Germ. 
Ref.  Church  ;  The  Future  Life,  etc.  J.  W.  Kevin,  Bibl.  Antiq. ;  Mystical 
Presence,  ’46 ;  Heidelb.  Catechism,  ’47,  and  a  series  of  articles  in  the  Mer- 
cersb.  Review  on  Puritanism,  the  Cyprianic  Church,  etc.  See  in  reply, 
Hodge  in  Princeton  Rev.,  ’48,  Schmucker  and  Berg ;  also  Brownson’s  Quart, 
and  Ebrard  (approving  Hevin’s  views)  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  ’51.  On 
P.  Schaff  (comp,  note  16);  he  has  also  written  on  the  Sfinde  wider  den 
heiligen  Geist ;  Principles  of  Protestantism,  ’45  ;  What  is  Church  History  ? 
’46  ;  America,  ’55  ;  Germany  and  its  Universities,  ’57  ;  edited  Deutsche 
Kirchenfreund,  ’48-’53,  and  Mercersb.  Rev.,  and  contributed  numerous  arti¬ 
cles  to  Bib.  Sacra  and  other  reviews.] 

22  [The  Dutch  Ref.  Church  was  first  established  in  Hew  Amsterdam  (Hew 
York),  under  the  classis  of  Amsterdam;  Domine  Everardus  Bogardus, 


§  285,  e.  Theology  and  Philosophy  in  the  United  States.  451 


1633-47  ;  S.  Megapolensis,  1642-68.  1737—71,  a  strong  movement  against 

the  dependence  on  Holland — Coetus  and  Conference  parties;  the  Coetus 
party  at  last  succeeded.  First  preaching  exclusively  in  English  by  A. 
Laidlee ,  d.  ’78.  The  Decrees  of  Dort  and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  are 
the  standards.  J.  H.  Livingston ,  Prof.  Theol.  (b.  1746,  d.  1855) ;  Sermons 
and  Addresses;  Life  by  Gunn,  ’56.  Theod.  J.  Frelinghuysen,  d.  1754, 
Sermons,  ed.  De  Witt ,  ’56. —  W.  C.  Brownlee,  on  Quakers,  ’24;  on  Popery; 
West  Apost.  Church;  Rom.  Cath.  Controv. ;  Deity  of  Christ.  Thos.  De 
Witt ,  Hist.  Disc.,  ’58,  etc.  D.  D.  Demurest ,  Hist.,  Ref.  D.  Church,  ’59. 
J.  S.  Cannon,  d.  1850,  Lect.  on  Pastoral  Theology,  ’53.  W.  R.  Gordon , 
Godhead  of  Christ,  1855.  Jos.  F.  Berg  (Germ.  Ref.  till  ’52),  Lect.  on  Ro¬ 
manism,  ’40;  Theology  of  Dens,  ’40;  Papal  Rome;  Voice  from  Rome; 
Pope  and  Presbyterians, ’44  ;  Robe  of  Treves;  Myst.  of  Inquis.,  ’46  ;  Reply 
to  Abp.  Hughes,  ’50  ;  Farewell  Words  to  Germ.  Ref.  Church  and  Nevin,  ’52 ; 
Prophecy,  ’56,  etc.] 

23  [  John  Murray,  from  England,  b.  1741,  d.  1815,  formed  the  first  Uni- 
versalist  Society  in  Am.,  1779;  Letters  and  Sermons,  3,  1816.  Chs. 
Chauncy,  in  Boston  (see  §  285,  d.,  note  7),  taught  the  doctrine  in  his  Salva¬ 
tion  of  All  Men,  1784  (reply  by  Jonathan  Edwards,  Jr.,  ’85),  and  Jos.  Hunt¬ 
ington,  of  Coventry,  Ct.  (d.  1795),  in  his  Calvinism  Improved,  publ.  1796  ; 
replies  by  Strong,  of  Hartford,  and  others. — Elhanan  Winchester  (b.  1751, 
d.  ’97) :  Univ.  Restoration,  1786  ;  on  Prophecies,  2,  1800. — Hosea  Ballou , 
d.  1851,  Orthodoxy  Unmasked;  Divine  Benevolence,  1815;  Atonement, 
1805-1828. — Hosea  Ballou,  2d,  d.  1861  :  Univ.  Expositor,  1831 ;  Ancient 
Hist.  Universalism. —  W.  Balfour ,  d.  1812:  Inquiry;  Essays;  Letters  to 
Stuart,  etc. — E.  H.  Chapin,  Characters  in  Gospels ;  Lord’s  Prayer  ;  Hu¬ 
manity  in  City,  ’54. — The  Annihilationists :  Geo.  Storrs,  Are  the  Wicked 
Immortal,  21st  ed.,  ’59.  C.  F.  Hudson,  Debt  and  Grace,  ’57  ;  Human 
Destiny,  a  Critique  of  Universalism,  ’61.  See  Alvah  Hovey ,  State  of  Im¬ 
penitent  Dead,  59  :  J.  R.  Thompson,  Law  and  Penalty :  R.  W.  Landis, 
Immortality,  etc.,  2d  ed.,  ’60.  Abp.  Whately,  Scriptl.  Revel,  respecting 
Future  State,  ’55.] 

24  [The  Quakers  (Society  of  Friends)  had  trouble,  1692,  with  George 
Keith,  who  organized  the  Christian  Quakers,  and  at  last  became  an  Episco¬ 
palian.  The  Quaker  predominance  in  Penn,  came  to  an  end,  about  1755,  in 
the  discussions  on  men  and  supplies  for  the  French  war.  No  Friend  was 
allowed  to  hold  slaves  ( John  Woolman,  Epistle  to  Quakers,  1773.  JBenezet 
(d.  1784)  aroused  the  zeal  of  Clarkson  in  England). — A  division,  1827,  by 
Elias  Hicks  (d.  1830),  who  denied  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  the  deity  and  atonement  of  Christ.  Separate  organizations  formed 
(150,000  regular,  and  10,000  Hicksite  Quakers.)] 

25  [The  Shakers  began  in  England  (called  Millennial  Church),  with  Jas. 
and  Jane  Wardley,  Bristol,  1747.  Mother  Ann  Lee  joined  them,  1757,  and 
became  the  spiritual  mother ;  emigrated  to  America,  1774,  Watervleit, 
N.  Y.,  d.  1784.  Strict  celibacy;  Christ’s  Second  Coming  (4th  dispensation 
began  in  1847).  See  Evans 1  Hist.,  1859  ;  A  Summary  View  of  the  Millen¬ 
nial  Church,  Albany,  1823. — Adventists:  Win.  Miller  preached  in  1833, 
that  the  end  of  the  world  would  be  in  1843  :  J.  V.  Hines,  Advent  Herald, 


452  Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 

184C.  Spiritualism,  (Rappings,  Necromancy)  began  1850,  with  the  Fox 
family  ,  Andrew  Jackson  Davis,  Harmonia,  6,  1850;  Nature’s  Div.  Revel.; 
Philos,  of  Spiritual  Intercourse;  Harmonial  Man,  etc.  J.  W.  Edmonds, 
Spiritualism,  2,  1853-5.  Owen ,  Footfalls  on  the  Boundaries,  etc.,  1860. 
See  Asa  Mahan,  Mod.  Myst.  Explained,  Bost.,  1856.  Modern  Necromancy, 
in  North  Am.  Rev.,  1855  ;  Christ.  Exam.,  Nov.,  1756  {Hill)  ;  Church  Rev., 
July,  1855  ;  Westminster,  Jan.,  1858.  W.  R.  Gordon,  Threefold  Test  of 
Modern  Spiritualism,  N.  Y.,  1856  ;  Agenor  de  Gasparin ,  Science  vs.  Spirit¬ 
ualism,  2,  1856  (transl.  by  E.  W.  Roberts ).  The  Literature  of  Spiritualism, 
New  Englander,  1858.  North  Brit.,  Feb.,  1861,  on  Edmonds  and  Owen.] 

28  [ Mormons ,  Latter  Day  Saints .  Joe  Smith ,  b.  1805,  published  Sol. 
Spalding's  (d.  1816)  Romance  on  the  American  Aborigines  (Nephi  and 
Lehi),  as  the  Book  of  Mormons,  1830.  The  church  founded  with  three  high 
priests,  twelve  apostles,  twenty  elders:  temple  in  Nauvoo,  1842:  Smith 
killed.  Brigham  Young  succeeded ;  in  1856  emigration  to  Utah.  They 
may  now  number  60,000  in  Utah.  Gifts  of  tongues  and  prophecy ;  poly¬ 
gamy  practised.  See  J.  B.  Turner ,  Mormonism  in  all  Ages.  Accounts  by 
Bennet ,  1843  ;  Gunnison ,  1852  ;  Ferris ,  1854  ;  Green ,  1858  ;  Hyde ,  1859  ; 
Edb.  Rev.,  April,  1854  ;  New  Englander,  Nov.,  1854  ;  Jules  Remy ,  Voyage 
au  Pays  des  Mormons,  2,  Paris,  1860  ;  T.  W.  P.  Taylder ,  The  Mormons’ 
Own  Book,  Lond.,  1855, — The  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants  ;  Kirtland, 
Q.,  1835  ;  Nauvoo,  1846  ;  and  a  3d  ed.  in  England.] 


§  286. 

CONFLICTS  OF  THE  CONFESSIONS. 

It  was  characteristic  of  the  theology  of  the  eighteenth  century  that 
it  attached  less  importance  to  the  denominational  differences  of  the 
confessions  of  faith,  upon  which  so  much  stress  had  been  laid  in  the 
preceding  period.  These  differences  had  receded  in  view  of  the  new  and 
fresh  antagonisms.  The  cause  of  this  was  not  only  rationalistic  in- 
differentism,  but  also  the  efforts  of  the  Pietists,  and  other  sects  of  a 
similar  character,  for  the  promotion  of  practical  piety.1  Although 
the  union  of  Catholicism  with  Protestantism  was  restricted  to  pious 
and  impracticable  wishes,2  yet  on  the  other  hand,  in  several  parts  of 
G-ermany  a  union  was  brought  about  between  the  Lutherans  and  the 
Calvinists.3  But  even  this  union  led  to  a  revival  of  the  former 
denominational  differences,  which  were  not  only  made  the  subject  of 
scientific  discussion,4  but  also  gave  rise  to  separations  and  commo¬ 
tions  in  the  church.6  Thus  Scriptural  Supernaturalism,  as  well  as 
old  Lutheran  orthodoxy,6  and  the  rigid  Calvinism7  of  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  centuries,  were  strongly  defended  in  the  nineteenth. 
The  work  of  union  has  been  very  much  shattered  by  this  dogmatic 
partisan  hatred. 


§  286.  Conflicts  of  the  Confessions. 


453 


1  Comp.  Urlsperger ,  (§  277,  note  6),  Zinzendorf  (§  277). 

3  Did  Lavater  and  Sailer  labor  to  effect  such  a  union  ? — Connection  of 
the  literary  romantic  school  with  the  catholicising  tendency  in  the  Pro¬ 
testant  church. — Conversion  and  proselytism.  See  the  works  on  Church 
History  [Hase,  Gieseler ,  Niedner ,  Guerickei] 

3  1817-30  :  Prussia,  Nassau,  Baden,  the  electorate  of  Hesse,  Hesse-Darm- 
Btadt,  Wtirtemberg.  Compare  the  works  on  ecclesiastical  history. 

4  Among  the  writers  on  systematic  theology,  Augusti ,  previous  to  the 
establishment  of  the  Union,  showed  the  necessity  of  enabling  the  students  of 
theology  to  obtain  a  more  thorough  knowledge  of  the  systematic  theology 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  which  even  Lessing  held  to  be  more  than  “  a  patch- 
work  of  blunderers  and  semi-philosophers,”  in  his  work  :  System  der  Christ - 
lichen  Dogmatik,  nach  dem  Lehrbegriff  der  lutherischen  Kirche ,  im  Grund- 
risse  dargstellt,  Leipz.,  1809 — Respecting  particular  doctrines,  see  the  special 
history  of  doctrines  (Lord’s  Supper,  Predestination,  etc.).  The  revived 
study  of  symbolism,  see  §  282,  also  helped  in  this  matter. 

6  Scheibel  in  Breslau  and  Steffens  (who  wrote  :  Wie  ich  wieder  ein  Lu- 
theraner  wurde  und,  Was  mir  das  Lutherthum  ist,  Breslau,  1831),  GuericTcc , 
(1835),  Kellner ,  Wehrhahn ,  and  others.  Concerning  the  commotions  to 
which  these  conflicts  gave  rise,  see  the  works  on  ecclesiastical  history,  e.  g. 
Hase,  p.  569,  ss.,  and  H.  Olshausen.  Was  ist  von  den  neuesten  kirch lichen 
Ereignissen  in  Schlesien  zu  halten?  Leipz..  1835.  Niedner ,  p.  888  sq. 

8  Rudelbach  und  Guericke ,  Zeitschrift  fur  die  gesammte  lutherische  Theolo- 
gie  und  Kirche,  from  the  year  1840.  Rudelbach ,  Reformation,  Lutherthum 
und  Union,  Leipz.,  1839.  Somewhat  later  we  find  the  camp  of  the  Ultra- 
Lutherans  itself  divided  into  fractions :  see  Gieseler ,  Kirchengeschichte  der 
neuesten  Zeit,  Bonn,  1855,  pp.  213,  277.  The  Lutherans  represented  by 
the  Zeitschrift  fur  Protestantismus  und  Kirche,  edited  by  Thomasius  and 
Kofman.  [Theologische  Zeitschrift,  1860.  K.  F.  A.  Kahnis,  Die  moderne 
Unions-doctrin,  Leipz.,  1853  ;  K.  J.  Nitzsch,  Wiirdigung  der  Augrifle  des 
Dr.  Kahnis,  1854  :  Kahnis ,  Die  Sache  der  lutherischen  Kirche  gegentiber  die 
Union,  1854. — The  chief  works  in  this  controversy  are  Julius  Muller ,  Die 
evang.  Union,  1854,  and  F.  J.  Stahl  (d.  1861),  Die  lutherische  Kirche  und 
die  Union,  2te  Aufl.,  1860.  Naur,  Dogmengeschichte,  p.  356,  represents  the 
course  of  things  thus :  the  church  in  opposition  to  the  new  philosophic  spec¬ 
ulations  could  not  take  any  other  consistent  standpoint  than  that  of  the  older 
Confessions ;  but  as  soon  as  they  come  back  to  them  earnestly,  the  old  con¬ 
flicts  of  the  symbols  must  break  out  anew.] 

7  Among  the  Momiers  in  the  Church  of  Geneva  (comp.  §  285,  note  9), 
in  the  Netherlands  and  in  the  district  of  Elberfeld ;  yet  it  can  not  be  pretended, 
that  there  was  a  revival  of  older  Calvinism,  like  that  of  old  Lutheranism 
( Neidner ,  885). 


454 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


§  287. 

THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.  GERMAN-CATHOLIC  ISM. 

The  development  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Germany  was 
different  from  that  in  France  ;  for  these  two  countries  alone  here  come 
into  consideration.1  In  the  former  country  Romanism  was  affected  by 
the  influence  of  the  philosophical  systems,  and  the  prevailing  tendency 
of  the  age.  While  some  Roman  Catholics,  especially  as  favored  in 
the  reign  of  Joseph  II.,  Emperor  of  Austria,  directed  their  efforts 
chiefly  to  the  reform  of  the  government  of  the  church,2  there  were 
others  who  sought  partly  to  rationalize  (az^klaren),2  and  partly 
to  idealise  (verklaren)  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine.4  Here  the 
modern  speculation  led  through  the  indefinite  views  of  the  older 
rationalism,  to  a  more  profound  and  philosophical  advocacy  of  their 
doctrines  in  their  conscious  distinction  from  those  of  the  Protestant 
Church.  This  was  the  case  especially  with  Hermes 5  and  M older  * 
and  Gunther ,7  though  with  different  degrees  of  success.  In  France 
the  Jansenistic  controversy  was  continued  at  the  commencement  of 
the  present  period  in  the  controversy  concerning  the  Constitution.8 
From  the  time  of  the  French  Revolution,  theological  conflicts 
appear  so  intimately  connected  with  political  contests,  as  to  preclude 
the  expectation  that  even  those  highly  talented  men  who  took  a 
prominent  part  in  these  conflicts,9  would  do  much  for  the  scientific 
development  of  theology.  The  theological  system  of  Bautain  is  of 
special  importance  in  its  relation  to  the  theology  of  Hermes.  The 
former  tried  to  prove  on  speculative  ground,  that  speculation  is  not 
admissible  in  systematic  theology,  and  rested  his  system  entirely 
upon  faith,10  while  Hermes  endeavoured  to  establish  faith  by  philos¬ 
ophy.  Both  systems  were  condemned  by  the  Papal  See  as  being 
founded  on  extreme  views.  The  so-called  German  Catholicism 
troubled  itself  less  about  dogmatic  principles.  Called  into  being  by 
an  extreme  Roman  Catholic  superstition,11  it  planted  itself  upon  a 
rationalistic  eclecticism  ;12  and  though  a  fraction  sought  to  save 
more  positive  elements,  yet  it  was  devoid  of  thorough  theological 
basis.13  [The  Roman  Catholic  literature  of  England,14  and  the 
United  States  of  America,15  has  been  chiefly  historical  and  contro¬ 
versial.] 

1  Among  the  Italian  theologians,  the  most  eminent  is  Cardinal  Perroney 
Prof,  in  the  Collegium  Romanum  :  Preelections  Theologicse  Rom.,  1835  ; 
in  German,  Landshut,  1852.  [Some  25  editions  of  this  work,  and  its 
abridgment  have  been  published ;  Perrone  has  also  written  on  the  Rule  of 
Faith  (Latin  and  French),  3  vols.,  1853  ;  on  the  Immaculate  Conception, 


§  287.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church. 


455 


1848;  Theology  and  Philosophy,  1845.  Perrone  was  born  1794,  and  be¬ 
came  Prof,  in  Rome,  1823. — Pellicia ,  Prof,  in  Naples,  d.  1823,  and  Pas- 
saglia ,  the  editor  of  the  Eccles.  Christ!  Monumenta  de  immacul.  Virginia 
Conceptu,  are  the  two  other  most  eminent  Italian  divines  of  the  century. — 
Among  the  Italian  philosophers,  Galluppi ,  of  Naples,  d.  1846,  taught  in  the 
spirit  of  Reid;  Ventura  (b.  1792),  on  Philos.  Reafeon  and  Catholic  Reason, 
and  on  the  Origin  of  Ideas,  1853,  interpreted  reason  by  the  light  of  the 
Council  of  Trent. — The  two  great  Italian  philosophers  of  the  century  are 
Vicenzo  Gioberti ,  d.  1852,  and  Antonio  Rosmini  ( Serbati ),  d.  1855,  both 
of  them  vigorous  opponents  of  the  pantheistic  school.  Gioberti  wrote  on 
the  Moral  Primacy  of  Italy  ;  the  Jesuits  :  the  Good  and  the  Beautiful ; 
Theory  of  Supernatural;  posthumous,  7  vols.  (Philos,  of  Revel.,  and  Pro- 
tology).  His  formula  is  Pens  creat  existentias.  Comp.  Westminster  Rev., 
Oct.,  1853  ;  Brownson’s  Quart.  (N.  Y.),  1859,  1860.  Rosmini,  on  Origin 
of  Ideas,  Moral  Phil.,  Theodicy,  Ontology,  Theosophy,  etc.  Comp.  Zeitschrift 
f.  Philos.,  1856,  1859  (by  Seydel)  ;  Annales  de  Philos.  Chret.,  1860  ; 
Depit ,  Histoire  de  la  Phil,  dans  ITtalie,  Paris,  1859;  Bartholmess ,  Histoire 
critique  des  doctrines  religieuses  de  la  Phil.  Moderne,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1855. 
Father  Lockhart ,  Life  of  Rosmini,  Lond.,  1856.  Rosmini’s  work,  The  Five 
Wounds  of  the  Church  (1.  In  left  hand — separation  between  people  and 
priesthood  in  public  worship  ;  2.  In  right  hand— inadequate  instruction  of 
priesthood  ;  3.  In  the  side — discussion  among  bishops ;  4.  In  right  foot — 
lay  nomination  of  bishops ;  5.  In  left  foot — dependence  of  ecclesiastical 
property) — written  1832,  publ.  1844,  was  prohibited  by  the  Congregation 
of  Cardinals,  1845;  but  the  accusation  was  dismissed  as  containing  no 
heresy,  after  an  examination  of  all  Rosmini’s  writings,  (30  vols.),  under  the 
Presidency  of  the  Pope  in  General  Congregation.  Rosmini  founded  the  In¬ 
stitute  of  Charity,  on  the  Lago  Maggiore,  1838.] 

3  Joseph  II.  (reigned  from  the  year  1780)  stood  in  the  same  relation  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  which  Frederick  II.  stood  to  the  Protestant 
Church,  but  manifested  greater  interest  for  religion,  and  was  also  more  dic¬ 
tatorial.  Concerning  Justinus  Febronius  (Nicolas  of  Hontheim)  and  the 
Punctation  of  Ems  (1786) ;  and  Scipio  Ricci ,  Bishop  of  Pistoja  and  Prato 
under  the  reign  of  Leopold  of  Tuscany,  see  the  works  on  ecclesiastical  his¬ 
tory.  [De  Potter ,  Vie  de  Ricci,  2  tom.,  1825].  The  contests  about  the 
hierarchy,  celibacy,  and  monasticism  also  belong  to  church  history,  and  not 
to  the  history  of  doctrines. 

8  Isenbiehl  (1774)  was  violently  attacked  on  account  of  his  interpretation 
of  the  Messianic  prophecies. — In  later  times  the  critical  and  exegetical  la¬ 
bors  of  Jahn ,  Hug,  and  Scholz ,  were  distinguished  by  a  more  liberal  spirit 
of  inquiry. — Dereser  and  Van  Fss  translated  the  sacred  Scriptures  into  Ger¬ 
man  ;  Blau  (died  1798)  undermined  the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  the 
Church  (Frankf.,  1791). — Joseph  Muth  examined  the  relation  in  which 
Christianity  stands  to  the  religion  of  reason  (Hadamar,  1818).  Michl 
(Anton)  manifested  more  liberal  views  in  the  treatment  of  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory.  [Among  the  German  Roman  Catholic  divines,  at  the  close  oj*  the  last 
century,  who  tried  to  popularise  theology,  were  Gazzaniga,  Prelect.  Theol,, 
Vien.,  1775  ;  Gervasio ,  Tract.  Theol.,  Vien.,  1765  :  Klupfel ,  Institut,  Theol., 


456 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Yindob.,  1789;  Wiest,  Demonstratio  dogm.,  Ingolstadt,  1788  ;  S tattler,  in 
bis  Theol.  Christ.  Theoret.,  Eustad.,  1781,  and  Loci  Theol.,  1775,  tried  to 
introduce  i  more  philosophical  spirit.  Under  the  influence  of  the  later 
German  philosophy,  Schwarz  made  use  of  Kantian  ideas  ;  Zimmer  applied 
Schelling’s  theory  of  intellectual  intuition  ;  Dobmeyer  interspersed  philoso¬ 
phical  reflections ;  Klee  tried  to  infuse  into  the  whole  system  a  philosophic 
method  ;  Liebermann  (Inst.  Theol.,  ed.  7,  Mogunt.,  1853),  has  more  the 
character  of  a  positive  dogmatics.  See  Kuhn ,  Katbol.  Dogmatik,  Bd.  i.  2te. 
Aufl.,  p.  515.  Kuhn’s  own  work  takes  a  high  rank  among  the  modern  Ro¬ 
man  Catholic  systems,  in  the  attempt  to  reconcile  faith  and  reason  ;  the 
second  volume  is  on  the  Trinity.] 

4  'Wessenberg  and  his  school  were  characterized  by  an  idealing  tendency, 
and  a  spirit  of  toleration  towards  other  communions.  [  Von  Wessenberg- 
Ampringen ,  b.  1777,  d.  1860;  from  1817  to  1827,  in  the  diocese  of  Con¬ 
stance,  in  conflict  with  Rome.  He  wrote  on  the  German  Church,  1816  ;  the 
Great  Councils  of  the  15th  and  16th  Cent.,  4  vols.,  1845  ;  God  and  the 
World,  2  vols.,  1857.]  Comp.  ( Keller )  Katholikon,  fur  Alle  unter  jeder 
Form  das  Eine,  Aarau.,  1827.  On  the  other  hand,  Sailer  (1751-1832)  in 
distinction  from  this  more  rationalising  tendency,  endeavored  to  represent 
Romanism  in  an  attractive  form,  by  the  use  of  mystic  phraseology  ;  and, 
lastly,  some  others,  such  as  Martin  Hoos ,  Al.  Henhofer ,  and  Johann  Goss- 
ner ,  sought  to  introduce  the  stricter  evangelical  principle  (and  Pietism)  into 
the  theology  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ;  the  twro  latter  afterwards  be¬ 
came  converts  to  the  Protestant  faith,  but  not  the  first ;  see  his  autobiogra¬ 
phy,  edited  by  Gossner,  Leipz.,  1826. — In  opposition  to  these  reforming 
tendencies,  Gorres  (born  1776)  endeavored  to  maintain  the  principles  of  the 
Romanism  of  the  middle  ages.  His  works,  characterized  by  vigor  and 
genius,  gave  new  support  to  the  school  of  Munich.  [ Joseph  Gorres ,  b.  1776, 
d.  1848.  His  History  of  Mysticism  is  a  reproduction  of  the  mediaeval  sys¬ 
tems,  adapted  to  modern  times.] 

6  George  Hermes,  born  1775,  was  professor  of  theology  in  Munster  and 
Bonn,  and  died  1831.  By  asserting  that  the  Romish  doctrine  might 
be  proved  philosophically,  he  undermined  the  authority  of  the  Church.  See 
his  Einleitung  in  die  christkatholische  Theologie,  Munster,  1819,  31,  Yoll. 
ii.,  1829.  Christkatholische  Dogmatik,  herausgegeben  von  Achterfeldt , 
Mtinster,  1834,  3  voll.  His  theory  was  condemned  by  Pope  Gregory  XYI. 
(1835.)  Comp.  P.  J.  Elvenich ,  Acta  Hermesiana,  Gott.,  1836.  Zell ,  Acta 
antihermesiana,  Sittard,  1836.  Hraun  et  Elvenich ,  Meletemata  theologica, 
Lips.,  1838  ;  Acta  Romana,  Han.,  1838.  Pheinwald ,  Repertorium,  xxxii.- 
xxxiv.  The  condemnation  of  Hermes  was  renewed  by  Pius  IX.  in  1847. 
[See  Niedner ,  p.  828-30  ;  and  his  Philosophise  Hermesii  Explicatio,  1838. 
Die  Wahrheit  in  Hermes.  Sache,  Darmst.,  1837.  Elvenich ,  Der  Hermesian- 
ismus  und  Joh.  Perrone,  2te.  Aufl.,  1844.  Sudhoff  in  Herzog’s  Realen- 
cyclop.] 

6  Mahler  was  born  1796,  and  died  1838.  Having  received  his  first  im¬ 
pressions  from  the  study  of  Protestant  theology  (Schleiermacher),  he  after¬ 
wards  employed  his  knowledge  to  oppose  it.  By  his  Symbolism  (Mainz, 
1832),  he  revived  the  controversy  between  the  Roman  Catholics  and  Pro 


§  287.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church. 


457 


testants,  and  induced  the  latter  to  re-examine  their  own  principles.  [Sym¬ 
bolism,  transl.  by  J.  R.  Robertson,  2  vols.,  Lond.,  1843  ;  New  York,  1844. 
For  the  works  in  reply,  see  vol.  i.  ante,  p.  42.  P.  MarheineJce ,  Ueber  M.’s 
Symbolik,  Berk,  1833.] — The  most  eminent  theologians  and  philosophers  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  are  :  Francis  JBaader  [d.  in  Munich,  1841  : 
works  edited  by  F.  Hoffmann ,  12  Bde.,  1858.  Comp.  Lutterbeck ,  der 
philos.  Standpunkt  Baaders,  1854;  Hamberger ,  Cardinalpunkte  Baaderschen 
Phil.,  1855;  Hoffmann ,  Belenchtung  der  neuesten  Urtheile,  1854;  Erd¬ 
mann  in  Zeitschrift  f.  Philos.,  1856  ;  Pelt ,  in  Reuter’s  Repert.,  Mai,  1860  ; 
Hamberger ,  Schelling  und  Baader  in  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theol.,  1860]  ;  F.  A. 
Staudenmaier  [d.  1854]  (among  his  numerous  works  we  mention  :  Ency- 
clopadie,  1834.  Philosophic  des  Christenthumus,  1839.  Metaphysik  der 
heiligen  Schrift,  1840);  and  J.  JB.  Hirscher  (he  wrote  :  Ueber  das  Yerhalt- 
ness  des  Evangeliums  zu  der  theologischen  Scholastik  der  neuesten  Zeit  im 
katholischen  Deutschland,  Tub.,  1823.  Die  Katholische  Lehre  vorn  Ablasse. 
ibid.,  1829,  etc.)  [Sengler,  Specul.  Philos,  und  Theol.,  1837  ;  Die  Idee 
Gottes,  2,  1852;  Denzinger ,  Die  religiose  Erkenntniss,  2,  1857  ;  Oischinger , 
Die  neuere  Phil.,  1853  ;  Glaubenslehre,  1858  ;  Von  Lasaulx ,  d.  1860,  Phil, 
der  Gesch.,  Aesthetik,  etc. — The  question  on  the  relation  of  faith  and  reason 
is  agitated  anew  between  Clemens  and  Kuhn.  See  Clemens ,  De  Scholastio- 
rum  Sententia,  Philosophiam  esse  Theologize  Ancillam,  Comment. ;  against 
Kuhn’s  Dogmatik  (1846)  ;  Kuhn ,  Philos,  und  Theologie,  1860,  Glauben 
und  Wissen  nach  St.  Thomas  in  the  Theol.  Quartalschrift,  1860,  and  the  2d 
ed.  of  his  Dogmatik;  Clemens ,  Ueber  d.  Yerhaltniss  der  Philos,  zur  Theol., 
I860.] 

7  Gunther ,  Yorschule  zur  ‘specul.  Theol.  Wien,  1828-1848.  [ Gunther 

und  Palst,  Januskopfe  fur  Philos,  und  Theol.  Wien,  1834.]  Comp.  H.  P. 
Oischinger ,  Die  Gunthersche  Philos.,  Schaffl.,  1852.  Ba.ltzer,  Neue  theol. 
Briefe  an  Gunther,  Bresl.,  1853.  Die  specul.  Theologie  Gunthers  und  seine 
Schule  (reprinted  from  Himmelsteins  Kathol.  Wochenschrift),  Wiirzb.,  1839. 
Zeitschrift  f.  lutherische  Theol.,  xvi.,  1854.  Hase  in  Church  History,  p.  655. 
[Gunther  was  condemned  at  Rome,  1857,  for  his  teachings  on  the  Trinity, 
Incarnation  and  Creation  ;  and  submitted.] 

8  The  relation  in  which  Zinzendorf  stood  to  Jansenism  is  worthy  of  notice  : 
u  Jansenism  was  the  salt  without  which  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  of  that 
'period  [beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century],  would  have  perished Tho- 
luclc,  Yermischte  Schriften,  ii.  p.  33.  Concerning  the  various  modifications 
of  Jansenism,  see  Hase ,  Church  History,  p.  516. 

9  The  anti-ecclesiastical  theories  of  Theophilanthropinism  (1796-1802), 
and  of  St.  Simonism  (at  a  later  period),  [see  Hase,  679]  had  only  a  temporary 
existence.  Romanism  was  brought  into  connection  with  politics  by  Chateau¬ 
briand  (born  1769)  and  Lamennais. — The  rationalistic  church  of  Abbe 
Chatel  (1830,  August.)  [ Chateaubriand ,  b.  1769,  d.  1848  ;  his  Genius  of 
Christianity  was  published  in  1802,  English  version  by  F.  Shoberl ,  2  vols., 
1811;  new  translation  by  C.  J.  White1  Phil.,  1856.  Bautain  has  also  pub¬ 
lished  a  Moral  Philosophy,  1842,  and  Psychology.  De  la  Mennais ,  d.  1854, 
his  work  on  Indifference  in  Matters  of  Religion  (1817-1823,  9th  ed.,  1851,) 
was  an  eloquent  advocacy  of  Rome;  but  he  abandoned  the  traditional  faith 


458 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


in  liis  Affaires  de  Rome,  and  Esquisse  d’une  Philosophie,  1841-5.  Count 
Joseph  de  Maistre ,  d.  1821,  Defended  the  ultra-montane  idea  of  the  Papacy, 
and  inveighed  against  the  Baconian  induction. — Aug.  Nicolas ,  Etudes  phil- 
osophiques,  sur  le  Christianismus,  2  vols.,  7  th  ed.,  1854.  The  works  of  A. 
Gratry  (De  la  Logique,  de  Dieu,  Psychologie,  1855-8),  revive  the  earlier 
French  speculations.] 

10  JBautain ,  Philosophie  du  Christianisme,  Strassb.,  1835.  Rheimvald 
Acta,  histor.  eccles.,  1835,  p.  305,  ss.,  1837,  p.  68,  ss.  F.  Junge ,  in  Illgens 
Zeitschrift  fur  historische  Theologie,  1837;  vii.  part  2.  His  system  was  con¬ 
demned  by  the  Pope,  1834,  Dec.  20th.  Comp.  \Kuhn ,  doer  Glauben  und 
Wissen,  in  der  theologischen  Quartalschrift,  1839,  part  3.  [Traditionalism 
has  been  the  prevailing  tendency  of  French  Catholicism,  represented  by  De 
Donald.  Bautain  and  his  Annales  de  la  Philos.  Chretienne.  The  Roman 
See  in  1856  took  still  more  definite  ground  against  the  pure  traditionalists 
in  4  Propositions,  at  the  instance  of  Abp.  Sibour.  On  this  controversy,  see 
Annales  de  la  Philos.  Chret.,  1859-60  ;  Brownson’s  Quarterly  Rev.,  1860—1  ; 
Lupus ,  Le  Traditionalisme  et  le  Rationalisme,  3  Tom.,  Liege,  1860. 

11  History  of  the  Holy  Coat  of  Treves.  See  Guericke ,  Hase ,  p.  656 ; 

Niedner ,  p.  926.  [ Gildemeyer  and  von  Sybel ,  Historisch.  Untersuchung, 

1844.  John  Ronge,  or  the  Holy  Coat  of  Treves,  New  York,  1845.] 

12  John  Ronge  [b.  1813],  of  Laurahtitte,  in  Silesia.  Letter  to  Bp. 
Arnoldi  of  Treves,  Oct.,  1844. — Council  at  Leipsic,  March  23-26,  1845. 
His  system  given  by  Niedner ,  p.  927,  note.  [He  denounced  papacy  and 
hierarchy,  and  claimed  full  freedom  of  conscience  and  of  investigation  ;  the 
statements  of  his  faith  are  simply  those  of  the  Apostles’  Creed.  See  Sam. 
Laing ,  Notes  on  Rise  of  German  Catholic  Church,  1845.  Gervinus ,  Mission 
of  German  Cath.,  transl.  Lond.,  1846.] 

13  John  Czerski  of  Schneidemtihl  (in  Prussian  Posen),  Offenes  Glau- 
bensbekenntniss  der  Christl.-Apostol.-Kathol.  Gemeinde,  Stuttg.,  1844. — - 
Czerski ,  Sendschreiben  au  alle  christl.-theol.-kathol.  Gemeinden,  June, 

1845.  — Berlin  Protestant  Church,  May  to  August,  1845. — Meeting  of 
Ronge,  Theiner  and  Czerski,  in  Rawicz,  Feb.,  1846. — Synod  in  Schnei- 
demiihl,  July,  1846,  and  final  adoption  there  of  the  Confession  of  Faith., 
See  D.  F.  F.  Kampe ,  Das  Wesen  das  Deutschkatholicismus,  Tubingr, 
1850.  See  also  (including  the  literature),  Niedner ,  p.  926,  sq .,  and  Herzog's 
Reale n cyclop.  Hase,  p.  657. 

14  \_Alban  JButler,  b.  1710,  d.  1773  :  Lives  of  Saints,  12  vols.,  1847,  New 
York,  1846  ;  Meditations  and  Discourses,  repr.,  1840. —  Charles  Butler,  b. 
1750,  d.  1832  :  Historical  Memoirs  of  English,  etc.,  Catholics,  4  vols.,  3d 
ed.,  1822  ;  Confessions  of  Faith,  1816  ;  Book  of  Rom.  Cath.  Church  (against 
Southey ),  1825,  and  Vindication,  against  Townsend,  1826  ;  Horae  Biblicse 
etc. — John  Milner,  b.  1752,  d.  1836  :  End  of  Controversy,  2d  ed.,  1819 
(reply  by  Jarvis  in  Am.) ;  Vindication  of  the  same,  1822. — Jos.  Berington , 
b.  1743,  d.  1827 :  Letter  on  Hartley  (see  §  285,  a,  note  15,  above)  ;  State 
of  English  Catholics,  1780,  1787  ;  Exposition  of  Rom.  Cath.  Principles, 
1787  ;  Rights  of  Dissenters,  1789;  his  Memoirs  of  Panzani’s  career  in  Eng¬ 
land  (1634-7),  transl.  1793,  led  to  a  controversy  with  Rev.  C.  Plowden,  and 
to  Berington’s  Faith  of  Catholics,  1813  ;  Literary  Hist,  of  Middle  Ages, 


§  287.  The  Russian-Greek  Church. 


459 


1814,  1816.  Richard  Challoner ,  bp.  of  Debra,  d.  1781,  Britannia  Sacra, 
1740. — John  Lingard ,  d.  1851:  Hist.  England,  new  ed.,  10  vols.,  1849; 
Antiq.  of  Anglo-Saxon  Church,  2,  1848  ;  Strictures  on  bp.  Marsh’s  Compar¬ 
ison  of  Confessions,  1815  ;  Transl.  of  Gospels,  etc. — Cardinal  Nicholas  Wise¬ 
man  (Abp.  of  Winchester,  1850)  is  the  ablest  of  the  English  Catholics: 
Lectures  on  Doctrines,  etc.,  of  Church  of  Borne,  2,  1844;  Real  Presence, 
1836  ;  Science  and  Revealed  Religion,  2d  ed.,  1842,  reprinted  in  Andover; 
Essays,  3  vols.,  1853,  etc. — The  following  went  from  the  Oxford  School  to 
the  Catholic  Church  (comp,  above,  §  285,  a.)  John  Newman ,  now  head  of 
the  Catholic  Univ.,  Dublin,  difficulty  of  Anglicans,  1850;  Position  of 
Catholics,  1851 ;  University  Education,  etc.  W.  G.  Ward ,  Ideal  of  Church, 
1844;  Anglican  Establishment,  1850,  contrasted  with  Church  Catholics; 
Nature  and  Grace,  1860.  Henry  E.  Manning ,  Unity  of  Church,  1852  ; 
Sermons;  Grounds  of  Faith,  1852.  Henry  W.  Wilberforce ,  Baptism,  2d 
ed.,  1849  ;  Incarnation,  3d  ed.,  1850  ;  the  Eucharist,  1853.  The  Dublin 
Review ,  since  1855,  has  been  the  ablest  organ  of  the  English  Roman 
Catholics.] 

15  [Bp.  John  England  (S.  C.),  d.  1842:  Works,  5  vols.,  1849.  Prince 
Gallitzin ,  d.  1840  :  Defence  of  Catholic  Principles.  Abp.  John  Hughes  of 
New  York,  controversial  pamphlets.  Abp.  F.  P.  KenricJc ,  b.  1797  :  Theol. 
dogmatica,  2  vols.,  1840  (repr.  in  Antwerp);  Theologia  Moralis,  3,  1842  ; 
the  Primacy,  1837  ;  Justification,  1841,  Reply  to  bp.  Hopkins,  etc. — Bp. 
Spalding  (of  Kentucky),  on  the  Reformation  (against  Merle  d’Aubigne)  ; 
Miscellanies;  Evidences.  O.  A.  Hrownson ,  Society  and  Church,  1836  ; 
Essays  on  Church  Questions,.  1852  ;  ed.  Brownson’s  Quarterly,  which  has 
been  Catholic  since  1844.] 


§  288. 

THE  RUSSIAN-GREEK  CHURCH. 

[A.  N.  Monravieff,  Hist,  of  Church  of  Russia,  1838,  transl.  by  Blackmore,  Oxf.,  1842.  R. 
W.  Blackmore,  Doctrine  of  the  Russian  Church,  from  Sclavonic  and  Russ,  originals, 
Aberdeen,  1845.  Macaire ,  Theologie  dogmatique  orthodoxe,  trad,  par  un  Russe,  2 
vols.,  Paris,  1860.  Introduction  &  la  Theol.  orthodoxe  de  Macaire  (rector  of  Ecclesi¬ 
astical  Academy  of  St.  Petersburg,  translated  by  Michael  Bulgakoff;  see  Christ.  Rembr., 
Jan.,  1858),  Paris,  1851.  Catechisme  detaille  de  l’Eglise  catholique  orientale,  trad, 
du  Russe,  Paris,  1852.  W.  Palmer,  Dissertations  on  the  Eastern  Catholic  Commu¬ 
nion,  Lond.,  1852.  Prince  August.  Galitzin ,  l’Eglise  greco-russe,  Paris,  1861.  Wad- 
dington's  Greek  Church,  1854.  Gass  in  Herzog’s  Realencyclop.  Glaubenszeugnisse 
der  griechischen  Kirche,  in  Appendix  to  Ease ,  Dogmatik,  5te.  Aufl.,  1860.  A.  P. 
Stanley ,  Lectures  on  the  Eastern  Church,  1861,  Lectures  4  to  8  on  Russia.] 

In  the  Russian-Greek  Church  Theophanes  Procopowicz1  and  Pla¬ 
ton 2  set  forth  the  orthodox  doctrines  which  were  afterwards  defended 
by  the  Imperial  Counsellor,  Alexander  of  Stour  dza,*  against  the 
attacks  of  the  Jesuits.  But  none  of  these  exerted  any  influence 
upon  the  development  of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  in  general. 


460 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


1  Procopowicz  was  born  at  Kiew,  a.  d.,  1681,  died  1739,  as  archbishop  of 
Novgorod.  After  his  death  was  published  his :  Christiana  Orthod.  Theolog, 
Tom.  i.-vii.,  1773-76,  ss.  See  Schrockh ,  Kirchengeschichte  (as  continued 
by  Tzschirner ),  ix.  p.  20 7,  ss. 

2  Platon,  born  1737,  became  archbishop  of  Moscow  [1775],  and  died  1812. 
He  wrote  :  Rechtglaubige  Lehre,  oder  Kurzer  Auszug  der  christlichen  The- 
ologie,  zum  Gebrauch  Seiner  Koniglichen  Hoheit  des  Grossfursten  Paul 
Petrowisch,  Riga,  1770  (translated  into  German.)  Comp.  Schrockh,  1.  c.  p. 
212,  ss.  Schlegel ,  Kirchengeschichte  des  18ten  Jahrhunderts,  vol.  p.  59,  ss. 
[English  translations  of  Platon  by  Pinkerton ,  viz.,  The  Present  State  of  the 
Greek  Church  in  Russia,  or  Summary  of  Christian  Divinity,  Lond.,  1814  ; 
another  translation  by  Coray ,  The  Orthodox  Doctrine  of  Apostolic  Eastern 
Church,  etc.,  1857;  by  Potessaco ,  Lond.,  1858.] 

8  Considerations  sur  la  doctrine  de  l’esprit  de  l’eglise  orthodoxe,  Stuttg. 
1816.  Translated  into  German,  1817  (by  Kotzebue .) 

Concerning  the  sects  of  the  Greek  Church,  the  Nestorians,  Monophysites,  and  Monothe¬ 
lites  (Maronites),  as  well  as  those  who  dissented  from  the  Russian  Church  (from  the  year 
1666),  viz.  the  Staroverzi  (Rascolniks),  and  the  Duchoborzi  (the  Russian  Quakers),  comp, 
the  works  on  ecclesiastical  history.  Ease ,  p.  667.  Deutsche  Vierteljahrschrift,  1842,  No. 
19.  Eefele,  Die  russische  Kirche,  in  Tubing.  Quartalsehrift,  1853.  [The  Malakans — eat¬ 
ing  milk  on  fast-days,  have  become  widely  diffused  during  the  present  century.  See  Le 
Raskol  (means  dissent) ;  Essai  historique  et  critique  sur  les  Sectes  religieuses  de  la  Russe 
Paris,  1854.  Russian  Schismatics,  in  Revue  des  deux  Mondes,  1859.] 


B.  SPECIAL  HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINES 
DURING  THE  FIFTH  PERIOD. 


FIRST  DIVISION. 


PROLEGOMENA.  RELIGION.  REVELATION.  BIBLE 

AND  TRADITION. 

(MIRACLE  AND  PROPHECY.) 

§  289. 

RELIGION. 

After  Christianity,  from  the  time  of  Wolf,  had  ceased  to  he 
regarded  as  the  only  religion,  and  a  distinction  had  been  made 
between  natural  and  revealed  religion,  it  became  necessary  to  define 
the  latter  more  precisely.  For  a  considerable  time  both  rationalists 
and  supernaturalists  adopted  the  definition  :  Religio  est  modus 
Deum  cognoscendi  et  colendi /  with  this  difference,  that  the  former 
made  religion  to  consist  chiefly  in  morality.3  Semler  made  a  dis¬ 
tinction  between  religion  and  theology,8  and  Herder  separated  reli¬ 
gion  from  doctrinal  opinions  and  religious  usages.4  According  to 
Schleiermacher ,  religion  consists  neither  in  knowledge,  nor  in  action, 
but  is  a  certain  definite  tendency  of  the  soul,  manifesting  itself  as 
the  absolute  feeling  of  dependence  on  God.5  Most  of  the  modern 
mediating  theologians  rest  their  systems  on  the  same  principle.* 
The  adherents  of  speculative  philosophy  consider  knowledge  as  the 
foundation  ;7  the  practical  systems  appeal  to  conscience ,  in  the  last 
instance.8 

1  On  this  point  comp.  Twesten ,  Dogmatik,  i.,  p.  2,  and  Nitzsch ,  System 
§  6.  The  formula  is  somewhat  enlarged  by  Ammon,  Summ.  Theol.  Chr.  §  1 : 
Conscientise ‘vinculum,  quo  cogitando,  volendo  et  agendo  numini  nos  obstric- 
tos  sentimus. 


462 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


2  According  to  Kant,  religion  consists  in  this,  that  in  reference  to  all 
our  duties  we  consider  God  the  legislator  who  is  to  be  reverenced  by  all. 
See  his  Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen  der  blossen  Yernunft,  p.  139. 

8  Sender  too  confounded  religion  with  ethics  (the  reformation  of  the  life). 
See  TholucJc ,  ii.,  p.  111. 

4  In  his  treatise:  Yon  Religion,  Lehrmeinungen  und  Gebrauchen,  1798. 
(Works,  xviii.,  p.  169-330.) 

5  Christliche  Glaubenslehre,  §  3  ss.,  comp,  his  Reden  uber  die  Religion, 
p.  56-77.  [On  Schleiermacher’s  and  kindred  views,  see  Morell's  Philosophy 
of  Religion  (1849),  pp.  82-106;  Thornwell  in  Southern  Presb.  Rev.,  April, 
1856.  Miles,  Philosophic  Theology  (1849),  175,  sq.  G.  Wissenborn, 
Yorlesungen  Tiber  Schleiermacher’s  Dogmatik  (1847),  p.  31-65.] 

6  This  definition  was  adopted  by  Twesten  and  Nitzsch ,  1.  c.  and,  with  some 
modifications  by  Hase ,  §  2-6,  and  De  Wette ,  Yorlesungen  fiber  die  Religion, 
Yorles.  4.  Wegscheider  (Inst.  §  2.)  defines  religion  as  aequabilis  et  constans 
animi  affectio ,  etc.  That  this  theory  does  not  necessarily  exclude  knowledge, 
may  be  seen  from  the  passages  of  the  respective  writers  above  referred  to. 
Comp,  also  Elwert ,  fiber  das  Wesen  der  Religion,  Tiibinger  Zeitschrift,  1835, 
part  3.  Ch.  Weisse ,  in  his  Philosophische  Dogmatik,  oder  Phil,  des  Christ- 
enth urns’  (ii.  Leipz.,  1855-60),  comprises  religion  under  the  generic  idea  of 
Experience  ( Erfahrung ),  §  22-103.  See  also,  S.  A.  Carlhlom ,  Das  Geffihl 
in  seiner  Bedeutung  ffir  den  Glauben,  Berlin,  1857.  \Lechler,  Idea  of  Re¬ 
ligion,  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1851,  translated  by  W.  Stearns ,  Bib.  Sacra, 
1852.  Hase ,  defines  it  as  “  a  striving  after  the  absolute,  in  itself  unattainable  ; 
but  by  love  to  it,  man  becomes  a  partaker  of  the  divine  perfection.”  Nitzsch , 
§  7  :  “an  active-  and  passive  relation  of  the  finite  consciousness  to  the  Crea¬ 
tor,  Preserver,  and  Ruler  of  the  World.”] 

7  See  Hegel’s  Preface  to  Hinrichs  Religionsphilosophie.  According  to 
Hegel  and  VatJce,  religion  is  the  process  of  the  mind.  (Nitzsch,  System, 
p.  9).  Feuerbach  insists  upon  the  subjective  element  as  making  the  essence 
of  religion,  and  then  finds  in  this  the  evidences  that  it  rests'upon  self-decep¬ 
tion  ;  theology  is  only  anthropology,  God  is  only  a  reflex  of  man.  See  his 
Wesen  des  Christenthums,  p.  20  :  “  Religion  is  a  relation  of  man  to  himself, 
or,  more  correctly  to  his  own  nature  (his  subjective  nature),  but  a  relation 
to  his  own  nature  as  if  it  were  another  nature.”  In  reply  see  Zeller,  TJeber' 
-das  Wesen  der  Religion,  in  his  Theolog.  Jahrbficher,  1845,  p.  26,  sq.,  393  sq., 
Hiederman,  Die  freie  Theologie,  Tfib.,  1844,  pp.  31-45.  [Comp.  Marian 
Evans's  translation  of  Feuerbach’s  Essence  of  Christianity,  p.  32  sq. :  “  Con¬ 
sciousness  of  God  is  self-consciousness,  knowledge  of  God  is  self  knowledge.” 
He  urges  the  position,  conceded  by  some  theologians,  that  the  divine  attri¬ 
butes  have  only  a  subjective  sense  and  value  ;  what  is  admitted  of  the  attri¬ 
butes  or  predicates,  he  says,  must  also  hold  good  of  the  subject  of  these 
predicates  :  “That  which  has  no  predicates  or  qualities,  has  no  effect  upon 
me ;  that  which  has  no  effect  upon  me  has  no  existence  for  me.  To  deny 
the  qualities  is  to  deny  the  being.”] 

8  J.  T.  Beck,  Christliche  Lehrwissenschaft,  i.  230  sq.  Ebrard,  i.,  p.  11. 
See  also  J.  P.  Lange,  i.  185.  \Ebrard,  “  Religion  is  the  elevation  of  sensi¬ 
bility,  will  and  feeling  into  a  higher  and  immediate  unity  of  the  God-con- 


•  i 

§  290.  Christianity,  Reason  and  Revelation.  463 

sciousness;  ©r  the  indivisible  unity  of  blessedness,  holiness  and  wisdom.” 
Lange  says  there  is  a  threefold  relation  to  God  ;  first,  man  recognizes  God  as 
the  all-determining  spirit,  and  his  dependence  upon  him  :  second,  gives  him¬ 
self  to  God,  as  a  being  of  absolute  power,  goodness  and  love,  and  in  doing 
this  attains  the  pure  determination  of  his  own  nature :  third,  in  this  union 
with  God  he  receives  the  true  life  of  his  own  soul,  etc.  Schenkel  in  his 
Dogmatik  vom  Standpunkte  des  Gewissens,  1858,  i.  135-155,  makes  con¬ 
science  to  be  the  organ  of  religion  in  man.  JRothe ,  Ethik,  i.  264,  views  con¬ 
science  as  essentially  religious  ;  “  conscience  stands  or  falls  with  the  idea  of 
God.”] 

§  290. 

TRUTH  AND  DIVINE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  PERFECTIBILITY. 

REASON  AND  REVELATION. 

Notwithstanding  their  many  differences  of  opinion,  all  Christians 
agreed  in  believing,  that  of  all  historical  forms  of  religion,  Christian¬ 
ity  was  most  worthy  of  God,  and  best  adapted  to  the  religions  wants 
of  mankind.  The  rationalists,  however,  had  recourse  to  the  supposi¬ 
tions,  either,  that  the  historical  religion,  serves  as  a  mere  vehicle  for 
the  natural,  and  will  at  some  time  be  resolved  into  it,1  or,  that  it  will 
gradually  lose  its  present  local  and  temporary  character,  and  he  per¬ 
fected  after  the  ideal  formed  by  reason.2  On  the  other  hand  the 
supernaturalists  of  course  regarded  the  religion  revealed  in  Holy 
Writ  as  complete  in  itself  for  all  times.  As  regards  the  nature  of 
revelation,  and  its  relation  to  reason,  the  supernaturalists  belonging 
to  the  earlier  part  of  the  present  period  conceded  important  rights 
to  the  latter.3  Asserting  that  revelation  was,  more  properly  speak¬ 
ing,  the  complement  of  reason,  they  assigned  to  the  latter  (now  be¬ 
coming  conscious  of  its  limits)  the  office  of  proving  the  possibility 
and  necessity  of  revelation.4  But  after  Kant  had  combated  the  idea 
that  reason  was  competent  to  decide  what  was  revealed  or  not,  the 
rationalists  substituted  the  idea  of  positive  (historical)  religion  for 
that  of  revealed  religion,  and  maintained  that  the  moral  value  of 
the  former  was  to  be  determined  by  practical  reason.6  In  opposition 
to  both  these  systems,  others  assigned  a  more  comprehensive  mean¬ 
ing  to  the  idea  of  revelation .6  In  the  opinion  of  some  speculative 
philosophers,  it  is  not  so  much  the  communication  of  isolated  and 
abstract  ideas,  as  the  intellectual  intuition  of  the  universal,  which 
constitutes  the  essence  of  revelation.7  According  to  others,  (practical 
theologians),  revelation  is  rather. the  manifestation  of  the  divine 
power,  which,  however,  does  not  exclude  the  cognitive  faculties  of 
man,  though  it  puts  them  in  a  secondary  place.8  At  any  rate 
the  idea  of  revelation  is  now  taken  in  a  more  living  and  flowing 


464 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


sense  tLan  it  was  in  the  older  theology,  notwithstanding  all  the  dif¬ 
ferences  of  present  usage. 

1  Henke ,  Lineam.  i.  2  :  Quo  magi's  adolescunt  homines. . .  .eo  minus  pon- 
deris  apud  illos  habet. . . .  auctoritas  aliorum.  Hinc  et  omnis  revelata  re- 
ligio  paullatim  in  rationalem  transit,  et  eo  eniti  potest  homo,  ut  alienae 
institutioni  non  amplius  fontis,  sed  canalis,  non  lucis,  sed  lucernae  ( ! )  benefi- 
cium  tribuat. 

2  Lessing  suggested  the  idea  of  a  perfectibility  of  the  Christian  religion, 
in  his  (?)  treatise  :  Ueber  Erzichung  des  Menschengeschleclits.  The  views 
of  Semler  respecting  the  local  and  temporary  in  Christianity,  and  the  dis¬ 
tinction  which  he  made  between  public  and  private  religion,  seem  to  indi¬ 
cate  that  he  held  the  same  opinion.  The  same  may  be  said  in  reference  to 
the  work  of  Teller  :  Religion  der  Vollkomnen.  Comp.  W.  T.  Krug ,  Briefe 
liber  die  Perfectibilitat  der  geoffenbarten  Religion,  Jena  u.  Lpz.,  1795,  and 
Ch.  F.  Ammon ,  Die  Fortbildung  des  Christenthums  zur  Weltreligion,  Lpz., 
1833-35,  ii. ;  2d  ed.,  1836-40,  iv. 

3  In  opposition  to  the  Socinians,  who  (in  strict  accordance  with  supernat¬ 
uralism)  rejected  the  idea  of  natural  religion,  as  well  as  to  the  “  Fanaticos, 
qui  dicunt,  rationem  esse  caecam,  corruptam,  hominem  a  Deo  magis  abdu- 
cere,  quam  ad  Deum  adducere,”  the  adherents  of  the  old  orthodoxy  defended 
the  use  of  reason  in  matters  of  religion,  e.  g .,  Beck ,  in  his  Fundamenta,  p. 
35,  ss.  J.  L.  Frey  (professor  of  theology  in  Basle,  died  1759),  De  officio 
Doctoris  Christiani,  pp.  33,  34 :  Cum  enim  lumen  naturae  aeque  ac  revela- 
tionis  Deum  patrem  luminum  auctorem  agnoscat,  nihil  a  Deo  naturae  lumini 
repugnans  revelari  censendum  est,  nisi  Deum  sibi  ipsi  adversari  blaspheme 
statuere  in  animum  inducamus.  Imo  ne  ipsius  quidem  revelationis  divinitas 
credi  posset,  si  quidquam  rationis  lumini  repugnans  in  ilia  inveniretur. 
Comp.  Baumgarten ,  Glaubenslehre,  Einleitung. — The  distinction  made  between 
articuli  puri  et  mixti. — Advocates  of  modern  evangelical  supernaturalism 
have  again  maintained,  that  reason  is  altogether  blind  in  matters  of  religion 
(in  opposition  to  rationalism).  [Comp,  the  Mansel  and  Maurice  discussion, 
§  285,  5,  note.] 

4  Comp.  Bret schneider,  Entwicklung,  etc.  (new  edit.,  1841),  §  30,  and  the 
compendiums  of  dogmatic  theology. 

6  See  Fichte ,  Kritik,  etc.  Tie/trunk,  Censur,  p.  66,  ss.,  p.  245,  ss. 

*  According  to  Herder ,  the  general  meaning  of  revelation  is  disclosure, 
publication,  enlightening,  clear  idea,  perception,  conviction.  See  the  pas¬ 
sages  collected  in  Herder’s  Dogmatik,  p.  20,  ss. 

7  In  the  opinion  of  Schelling  (Methode,  p.  196),  the  whole  of  history  is  a 
divine  revelation.  According  to  Blasche  (Philosophic  der  Offenbarung), 
revelation  is  equal  to  manifestation  (§  5.)  Not  only  history,  but  also  natu¬ 
ral  history,  belongs  to  the  province  of  divine  revelation  (§  22.)  He  combats 
the  common  (supernaturalistic)  view,  according  to  which  revelation  is  super¬ 
natural,  §  43,  ss.  Revelation  is  opposed  to  mystery,  and  signifies  the  dis¬ 
closures  of  mysteries,  while,  according  to  the  common  view,  revelation  itself 
contains  mysteries,  §  55,  ss. 

8  Twesten ,  §  24  (vol.  i.  p.  340),  defines  revelation  as  the  “  manifestation 


§  291.  Scripture  and  Tradition. 


465 


of  divine  grace  for  the  salvation  of  mankind.”  Comp,  the  whole  section, 
and  Nitzsch ,  §  23,  ss.  De  Wette  shows  the  necessity  of  making  a  distinction 
between  revelation  and  the  inspiration  of  Holy  Writ,  Dogmatik,  §  26.  On  the 
difficulty  of  establishing  precise  definitions,  see  Schleiermacher ,  §  10.  Among 
the  recent  divines,  see  J.  P.  Lange,  i.  385,  sq.  Martensen  (ed.  of  1836),  p. 
49,  sq.  Ch.  Weisse,  §  104-179.  On  Hermes  and  Bautain  in  the  Catholic 
church,  see  §  287.  [Comp.  H.  Ulrici ,  Glauben  und  Wissen,  Speculation 
und  exacte  Wissenschaft,  Lpz.,  1858. — H.  Rogers ,  (Edinb.  Rev.,  1849),  on 
Faith  and  Reason,  repr.  in  his  Essays;  and  his  Eclipse  of  Faith,  1852. — 
Fronde's  Nemesis -of  Faith,  Lond.,  1849.  MorelVs  Phil,  of  Religion.  F. 
W.  Newman ,  Phases  of  Faith,  1850.  Brownson’s  Qu.  Rev.,  July,  1856. 
Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vi.,  on  the  Relations  of  Faith  and  Philosophy.  Christ. 
Examiner,  March,  1861  :  The  Cause  of  Reason  and  the  Cause  of  Faith 
{Hedge). — The  controversy  between  Traditionalism  and  Rationalism  in  the 
Rom.  Cath.  Church,  led  to  the  publication  of  four  propositions  by  the 
Holy  See,  on  Reason  and  Faith,  Dec.  12,  1855.  The  first  asserts,  that 
though  faith  be  above  reason,  yet  there  is  no  dissension,  for  both  are  from 
one  fountain  of  light,  •  viz.,  God.  2.  Ratiocinatio  Dei  existentiam,  animae 
spiritualitatem,  hominis  libertatem  cum  certitudine  probare  potest.  Fides 
posterior  est  revelatione ;  proinde  ad  probandum  Dei  existentiam  contra 
atheum,  ad  probandum  animae  rationalis  spiritualitatem,  ac  libertatem  con¬ 
tra  naturalismi,  ac  fatalismi  sectatorem  allegari  convenienter  nequit.  3.  Ra- 
tionis  usus  fidem  praecedit,  et  ad  earn  hominem  ope  revelationis  et  gratiae 
conducit.  The  fourth  proposition  asserts,  that  the  method  of  Bonaventura 
and  others  does  not  lead  to  rationalism.  See  Brownson’s  Qu.  Rev.,  1860, 
p.  440,  s^.] 


§  291. 

THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  SCRIPTURE  AND  TRADITION.  SCRIPTURE  AND 

SPIRIT. 

During  the  preceding  period  Protestant  theologians  had  been 
accustomed  to  call  the  sacred  Scriptures  themselves  the  Word  of  God; 
in  the  course  of  the  present  period  the  distinction  was  enforced  be¬ 
tween  the  Word  of  God  contained  in  Holy  Writ  and  the  Scriptures 
themselves.1  The  rationalists  themselves,  however,  retained  the 
(negative)  principle  of  Protestantism,  that  the  sacred  Scriptures  are 
a  purer  source  of  knowledge  than  tradition.3  Only  Lessing  advanced 
the  opinion  that  tradition  is  older  than  Holy  Writ.3  Some  modern 
theologians  endeavored  to  determine  precisely  the  relation  in  which 
these  two  stand  to  each  other,  and  showed  that  their  difference  is 
more  relative  than  absolute.4  Puseyism  made  the  attempt  to  en¬ 
force  the  authority  of  tradition  in  the  old  Catholic  sense.5  By  the 
Protestant  Friends  [§  284,  note  2]  the  question :  Scripture,  or 


466 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Spirit?  was  decided  in  a  sense  which  gave  the  most  unlicensed  ph 
to  subjective  opinions.6 

1  There  were  hints  of  this  even  in  the  century  of  the  Reformation ;  see 
Schenkel ,  i.  §  13.  The  distinction  was  first  made  prominent  by  J.  G.  Toll- 
ner  (died  1774):  Der  Unterschied  der  heiligen  Schrift  und  des  Wortes 
Gottes,  in  his  Miscellaneous  Essays,  Frankf.,  1766,  p.  85,  ss.  He  shows, 
from  the  language  of  Scripture  itself,  that,  by  the  Word  of  God ,  we  are  not 
to  understand  the  Sacred  Scriptures ;  on  the  other  hand  there  are  some  things 
in  Holy  Writ  which  do  not  belong  to  the  Word  of  God  (such  as  historical 
events)  although  all  in  it  has  respect  to  the  Word  of  God  ;  and,  in  con¬ 
nection  with  it,  that  not  all  parts  of  Holy  Writ  are  equally  rich  in  the 
Word  of  God.  Tollner  goes  even  as  far  as  to  maintain  that  the  Word  of 
God  is  not  limited  to  the  sacred  Scriptures,  but  also  exists  elsewhere ; 
for  he  who  propounds  divine  truth,  propounds  the  Word  of  God.  It  is 
further  contained  in  reason,  and  may  be  found  in  all  the  different  forms 
of  religion  known  among  mankind,  though  Christians  possess  the  Word  of 
God  in  its  most  excellent,  most  perfect,  and  clearest  form  in  the  sacred  Scrip¬ 
tures. — Herder  directed  the  attention  of  theologians  to  what  may  be  called 
the  human  aspect  of  Scripture  (Briefe  fiber  das  Studium  der  Theologie, 
Brief,  i.,  and  in  his  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry  [see  Marsh's  version] ;  in  his 
essay,  Yom  Geist  des  Christenthums,  and  in  other  works. 

2  The  rationalists  often  ventured  to  maintain  that  their  system  alone  was 
in  accordance  with  Scripture ,  and  rejected  the  development  of  doctrines,  and 
the  symbolical  definitions,  as  contrary  to  the  principle  of  Protestantism. 

3  Lessing,  in  his  controversy  with  Gotze,  appealed  to  the  Regula  Fidei  in 
its  earliest  sense,  which  existed  previous  to  the  wrritten  Word.  Comp,  his 
works,  vi.,  vii. ;  Theologischer  Nachlass,  p.  115  ss.  Delbruck  revived  this 
idea  in  his  work:  Philip  Melancthon,  der  Glaubenslehrer,  Bonn,  1826.  He 
was  opposed  by  Sack,  Nitzsch,  and  Lucke ,  Bonn,  1827. 

4  Pelt,  iu  the  first  part  of  the  Theologische  Mitarbeiter,  Kiel,  1830.  Schen- 
kel,  fiber  das  ursprfingliche  Verhaltniss  der  Kirche  zum  Kanon,  Basel,  1838. 
Compare  with  this  wrork  the  modern  compendiums  of  dogmatic  theology,  e.  g. 
Twesten,  i.,  p.  115-119,  128-130,  288.  Marheineke,  Symbolik,  ii.,  p.  187 
ss.  The  critical  researc-hes^respecting  the  origin  of  the  Canon  (from  the  time 
of  Sender),  rendered  the  distinction  between  Scripture  and  tradition  more  in¬ 
definite.  [Comp.  Holtzmann ,  Kanon  und  Tradition,  427  sq.] 

&  See  Keble  on  Primitive  Tradition,  (compare  the  German  work  of  Weaver- 
Amthor,  ubi  supra,  p.  10  sq.,  40  sq.)  The  tradition  of  the  first  six  centuries 
was  assumed  as  untroubled.  Among  the  German  theologians  Daniel  in  his 
“  Kontroversen,”  Halle,  1843,  approximates  most  closely  to  the  Oxford  school : 
in  reply,  see  Jacobi,  Die  Kirehliche  Lehre  von  der  Tradition  und  heiliger 
Schrift,  Berk,  1847.  [On  the  Oxford  view,  see  W.  Goode,  Div.  Rule  of  Faith, 
2d  ed.,  3,  1843 ;  Palmer  on  the  Church,  ii.  11-93  :  E.  H.  Pusey,  The  Rule 
of  Faith:  Peck,  Appeal  from  Tradition  to  Scripture,  New  York,  J844; 
Tracts  for  the  Times,  78.] 

6  Wislicenuq,  Ob  Schrift,  ob  Geist?  2  Aufl.,  1845,  and  the  writings  in 
this  controversy  (Comp.  JBruns  und  Hafner's  Repert.,  vi.,  etc.). — Scherer  iu 


§  292.  Miracles  and  Prophecy. 


467 


yeral  articles  in  the  Rev.  de  Theol.  (see  §  285,  note  11).  Tholuck  in  the 
Zoitschrift  f.  Christl.  Wissenschaft,  1850,  No.  16-18,  42-44.  In  reply,  S tier, 
in  the  same  journal,  1850,  No.  21.  [Tholuck’s  Essay  translated  in  Journal 
of  Sacred  Lit.,  July,  1854  ;  his  reply  to  Stier  in  Zeitschrift  f.  Christl.  Wiss., 
1851. — Scherer  first  wrote  La  Critique  et  la  Foi,  1850  ;  replied  to  Malan  in 
Rev.  de  Theol.,  1850  ;  to  Merle  d'Aubigne ,  Gasparin,  Cheneviere  (De  1’ Au¬ 
torite  du  Nouveau  Test.),  and  others,  1850-1.  Gasparin ,  reviewed  Scherer 
in  Les  Archives  du  Christ.,  1850  ;  his  work  on  Plenary  Inspiration,  transl. 
by  J as.  Montgomery ,  1851.  On  this  controversy,  see  S chaff  h  Kirchenfreund, 
Aug.,  1851  ;  Princeton  Review,  July,  1851.] 


§  292. 

INSPIRATION  OP  SCRIPTURE.  INTERPRETATION.  MIRACLES  AND 

PROPHECY. 

The  critical  treatment  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  gradually  under¬ 
mined  the  authority  of  the  former  rigid  theory  of  inspiration.1  For 
a  time  commentators  sought  to  remove  all  difficulties  by  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  principle  of  accommodation,2  or  by  an  arbitrary  exege¬ 
sis  ;3  but  at  last  the  rationalists  found  themselves  compelled  by  a 
more  unbiassed  system  of  interpretation  to  acknowledge  that  Christ 
and  his  apostles  might  have  erred,  at  least  in  those  things  which  do 
not  constitute  the  essential  parts  of  religion.  This  was  the  case 
especially  with  the  miracles  and  prophecies,  to  which  the  former 
apologists  had  appealed  in  support  of  their  views.  After  they  had 
in  vain  endeavored  to  explain  them  away  by  artificial  modes  of  in¬ 
terpretation,  they  were  compelled  to  assert  that  the  sacred  writers 
had  a  different  point  of  view  from  that  of  modern  theologians  ;  thus 
renouncing  the  absolute  authority  of  their  writings.4  The  adherents 
of  the  mediating  theology  sought  to  avoid  these  difficulties,  by  affix¬ 
ing  to  the  idea  of  inspiration ,5  as  well  as  to  that  of  miracle >6  and  of 
prophecy ,7  a  more  comprehensive  and  spiritual  sense.  But  at  the 
same  time  they  introduced  much  that  was  indefinite,  which  is  not 
yet  fully  cleared  up. 

1  The  theory  of  accommodation  was  principally  applied  to  the  demoniacal 
and  miraculous ;  Christ  and  his  apostles  accommodated  themselves  to  the 
weakness  and  the  prejudices  of  their  contemporaries.  Comp.  Senf,  Versuch 
fiber  die  Herablassung  Gottes  in  der  christlichen  Religion,  Halle,  1792.  P. 
van  Hemmert ,  fiber  die  Accommodation  im  N.  Test,  translated  from  the 
Dutch,  Dortm.  u.  Lpz.,  1797.  Vogel ,  Aufsatze  theologischen  Inhalts,  Niirnb., 
1799.  2d  part;  and  several  others.  This  theory  was  combated  by  Susskind , 
fiber  die  Grenzen  der  Pflicht,  keine  Unwarheit  zu  sagen,  im  Magazin  St.  13. 
Heringa,  fiber  die  Lehre  Jesu  und  seiner  Apostel,  translated  from  the  Dutch, 
Offenb.  1792.  For  more  particulars  as  to  the  literature,  comp.  Jdretschnei - 
der ,  Entwickl.,  p.  138  ss.  [ Hugh  Farmer ,  b.  1714,  d.  1787,  maintained  that 


468 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


the  demoniacs  were  simply  affected  by  disease,  Essay  on  Demoniacs,  1775; 
Letters  to  Dr.  Worthington,  1778  ;  Worship  of  Human  Spirits  in  the  An¬ 
cient  Nations,  1783.  John  Fell  (d.  1791),  also  replied  to  Farmer.  Farmer’s 
views  had  been  previously  in  part  maintained  by  Dr.  Mead ,  Jos.  Mede}  Lard - 
ner  and  Sykes 

a  The  Rationalists  are  sometimes  unjustly  blamed,  as  if  they  alone  had 
made  use  of  that  arbitrary  mode  of  interpretation  (explaining  Christ’s  mira¬ 
cles  as  natural  events,  by  Paulus  and  others).  There  were  also  supernatu- 
ralistic  theologians,  as  Storr ,  who,  had  recourse  to  a  most  artificial  exegesis, 
in  order  to  remove  differences  in  the  various  accounts  of  one  and  the  same 
event,  etc.,  which  appeared  contrary  to  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration. 
(For  example  to  take  Iva  as  8Kj3arucd)g,  in  the  appeal  to  Messianic  passages, 
which  are  not  strictly  such. — Kant  introduced  the  system  of  moral  interpreta¬ 
tion  [Davidson,  Sacred  Hermeneutic,  p.  193  ss.],  according  to  which  preach¬ 
ers  and  schoolmasters  ought  to  explain  Scripture,  untroubled  by  its  original 
historical  meaning,  in  such  a  manner  as  is  likely  to  prove  useful  to  the  moral 
condition  of  the  people;  and  also  to  put  such  useful  matter  into  passages 
which  do  not  contain  it ;  See  his  Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen  der  blossen 
Yernunft,  p.  149  ss.  His  theory  was  opposed  by  Rosenmuller  (Erlangen, 
1794,  8.)  In  addition  to  the  grammatico-historical  system  of  interpretation 
which  has  been  adopted  by  most  modern  commentators,  Germar  made  use 
of  the  panharmonic,  Olshausen  and  Stier  of  the  allegorical,  mode  of  interpre¬ 
tation. 

3  Henke ,  Lineamenta,  c.  15.  Wegscheider ,  Institutiones,  §  44.  Tzschir- 
ner ,  Dogmatik,  c.  ii.,  §  6.  Different  from  this  is  the  hypothesis,  so  much 
favored  in  recent  times,  on  the  alleged  tendencies  and  aims  of  the  bibli¬ 
cal  (particularly  the  New  Testament)  writers,  as  carried  out  in  all  its  modu¬ 
lations  especially  by  the  school  of  Tubingen.  See  in  opposition  I Veisse, 
Phil.  Dogmatik,  p.  151. 

4  Supernaturalists  also  admitted  that  the  sacred  penmen  in  writing  con¬ 
cerning  things  not  essential  (i.  e.  not  referring  to  religion),  represented  them 
according  to  their  best  knowledge  and  ability :  see  Reinhard,  Dogmatik,  p. 
59  (56)  ;  Storr ,  I^ogmatik,  §  11.  In  the  same  way  the  adherents  of  modern 
theology  agree  with  the  rationalists  in  opposing  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration. 
This  was  the  case  especially  with  Herder ,  who  on  the  other  hand,  expressed 
himself  with  enthusiasm  in  favor  of  that  which  is  truly  inspired ;  comp, 
his  Essays,  Vom  Geist  des  Christenthums,  Von  der  Gabe  der  Sprachen,  etc. 
(Dogmatik,  p.  91  ss.)  ;  Twesten,  i.,  pp.  414,  415.  Rationalism  not  only  gave 
up  the  unconditional  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  but  also  the  belief  that  the 
Scriptures  have  normal  authority  in  respect  to  religious  truth  j  the  mediating 
theology  upheld  their  authority  in  this  later  aspect,  by  regarding  the  New 
Testament  writings  as  the  primitive  productions  of  the  Holy  Spirit  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  to  which  all  later  works  stand  in  the  same  relation  in 
which  copies  stand  to  the  original.  Comp.  Schleiermacher ,  Christlicher 
Glaube,  ii.,  p.  340  ss.  According  to  De  Wette ,  Dogmatik,  p.  40,  the  essen¬ 
tial  part  of  interpretation  is  :  “  the  religious  sense  of  the  divine  working,  or 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  sacred  writers,  solely  in  regard  to  their  belief  and 
elevation  of  soul,  not  having  respect  to  the  formation  of  their  ideas,”  etc. 


§  292.  Miracles  and  Prophecy. 


469 


Comp.  Hase,  §  455  ss.  Hillroth ,  wlio  belonged  to  the  speculative  school 
expressed  himself  as  follows  (Preface  to  his  Commentary  on  the  Corinthians, 
p.  vii.)  :  “  It  is  the  object  of  systematic  theology,  to  comprehend  that  which 
is  truly  rational,  even  the  Spirit  which  manifests  itself  in  the  Christian  reli¬ 
gion.  But  since  this  Spirit  has  assumed  a  temporal  form  in  the  revelation 
of  God,  it  was  of  course  received  by  meu  whose  education  was  influenced  by 
the  peculiar  circumstances  of  their  age.  These  men  were,  in  the  first  in¬ 
stance,  the  apostles,”  etc.  Comp.  Marheineke ,  Dogmatik,  p.  358  ss. — Who¬ 
ever  with  Strauss  (Glaubenslehre,  i.  179,  note),  looks  upon  such  a  recurrence 
to  the  first  times  of  Christianity,  as  a  sinking  back  into  the  unspiritual,  will 
of  course  see  in  this  the  end  of  the  history  of  the  dogma  of  inspiration.  Comp. 
Schelling ,  Methode  des  akad  Studiums,  p.  198.  [Schelling  here  speaks  of 
those  who  would  thus  reduce  Christianity  to  its  first,  simple  elements, 
and  adds :  “  One  might  think  that  the  teachers  of  the  Christian  religion 
would  be  thankful  to  those  in  later  times,  who  have  derived  so  much  specu¬ 
lative  material  from  the  scanty  contents  of  the  first  religious  writings,  and 
shaped  them  into  a  system.”  Hegel ,  Phil.  d.  Relig.,  iii.  Ill  :  “  The  biblical 
text  contains  the  mode  in  which  Christianity  first  appeared,  this  it  describes  : 
yet  this  cannot  give  us  in  an  explicit  form  what  is  latent  in  the  principle  of 
Christianity,  but  only  a  presentiment  thereof :”  cited  by  Strauss,  u.  s.  For 
a  review  and  criticism  of  the  whole  subject  in  its  present  aspects  and  bear¬ 
ings  in  German  theology,  see  Rothe,  Zur  Dogmatik,  in  the  Studien  uud 
Kritiken,  1858,  on  Revelation  and  Inspiration.  Comp,  also  Roster ,  Das 
Verhaltniss  der  freien  Thatigkeit  zur  gottlichen  Oflenbarung,  in  the  Stud,  und 
Krit.,  1852  ;  Richm,  Der  gottmensliche  Character  d.  heiligen  Schrift,  ibid., 
1859.  Philippi,  Glaubensl.  i.  184,  defends  “word-inspiration,”  not  inspira¬ 
tion  of  words.]  The  French  orthodoxy  has  as  yet  adhered  more  strictly 
than  the  German  to  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration.  Gasparin  and  Gaus- 
sen  are  its  chief  representatives.  \Gasparin,  Plenary  Insp.,  transl.  by 
Montgomery ;  Gaussen,  Theopneustia,  transl.  by  Kirk^\  In  opposition 
thereto  in  recent  times  we  find  not  only  the  rationalistic  tendency  of  Scherer 
and  the  Revue  Protestante  [see  §  29,  note  6],  but  also  more  liberal  views 
from  the  camp  of  the  “  believers.”  Comp.  Fred,  de  Rougemont,  Christ  et  ses 
Temoins,  Paris,  1856,  2  Tom.  Thus  in  Tom.  i.,  p.  426 :  La  Revelation  de 
Jesus  Christ  qui  est  la  vie,  et  dont  l’Esprit  vit  dans  PEglise,  ne  suppose 
point  necessairement  un  document  ecrit.  ii.,  p.  161  :  On  detruit  la  Reve¬ 
lation  quand  on  la  transforme  en  un  systeme  de  verites  abstraites. . . .  Vou- 
lons-nous  nous  faire  une  idee  d’une  religion  d’abstractions :  prenons  le 
Koran.”  Yet  still  he  teaches  the  strictest  subordination  of  reason  to  revela¬ 
tion,  which  he  distinguishes  from  inspiration. 

[In  the  English  and  American  theology,  the  strict  theory  of  verbal  inspi¬ 
ration  is  defended  by  John  Dick,  Essay  on  Inspiration,  4th  ed.,  Glasg.,  1840  ; 
Alexander  Carson  (against  Pye  Smith )  ;  Jas.  A.  Haldane,  1845  ;  Elea.zar 
Lord,  Plenary  Insp.,  New  York,  1857  ;  L.  Woods ,  Lectures  on  Theology, 
vol.  1.  See  also  E.  Henderson,  on  Divine  Insp.  (in  Congregational  Lects., 
vol.  4)  ;  R .  S.  Candlish,  Authority  and  Insp.  of  Script.,  1851  ;  Chr.  Words - 
worth,  on  Insp.,  2d  ed.,  1851,  and  Lectures  in  Westminster  Abbey,  1861. 
Coleridge,  iu  his  Confession  of  an  Inquiring  Spirit,  1831,  opposed  the  verbal 


470 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


accuracy  of  the  Scriptures.  Morell ,  in  his  Philos,  of  Religion,  restricted  in¬ 
spiration  to  intuitional  truth  (comp.  Thornutll,  in  South.  Presb.  Quart., 
April,  1856). — F.  W.  Newman ,  Gregg,  and  Theod.  Parker ,  indentify  inspi¬ 
ration  with  the  elevation  of  the  soul  by  spiritual  truth.  J.  Macna, ught,  The 
Doctrine  of  Inspiration,  opposes  the  infallibility  of  the  Scriptural  record. 
Comp,  on  these  later  views  the  North  British,  Nov.,  ’52,  Aug.,  ’57  ;  British 
Quart.,  Jan.,  ’57  ;  Kitto’s  Journal,  Oct.,  ’53,  Oct.,  ’54,  July,  ’56;  Princeton 
Rev.,  ’51,  ’57  ;  Church  Rev.,  ’56;  Church  Eng.  Quart.,  ’54  ;  Fitch  in  Bib. 
Sacra,  ’55  ;  Torrey  in  Bib.  Sac.,  ’58  ;  Ellis  in  Christ.  Exam.  (Unit.),  Sept., 
’56;  Lord  A.  Hervey ,  Sermons,  Univ.  Cambr., ’56  ;  Heurtley,  Lect.  Univ. 
Oxf.,  ’61  ;  B.  F.  Westcott ,  Introd.  to  Gospels,  ’60,  pp.  5-37,  383,  sq. — See 
also  Pobt.  Whytehead ,  Warrant  of  Faith,  Lond.,  ’54  ;  and  especially  Wil¬ 
liam  Lee ,  The  Insp.  of  Holy  Scripture,  its  Nature  and  Proof  (Lects.  before 
Univ.  of  Dublin),  1854,  reprinted  New  York,  1856.] 

5  From  the  time  of  Spinoza  (Tract.  Theol.  polit.  c.  6,  De  Miraculis)  and 
Hume,  the  rationalists  did  not  cease  to  oppose  the  reality  and  credibility  of 
miracles,  while  the  adherents  of  the  modern  (formal)  supernaturalism  rested 
belief  in  revelation  especially  on  that  branch  of  evidence ;  in  this  they 
differed,  e.  g .,  from  Luther,  comp.  Phase,  Dogmatik,  p.  207.  The  theory  of 
preformation  advanced  by  Bonnet  (according  to  which  God  has  a  priori  in¬ 
cluded  the  miricles  in  the  course  of  nature),  did  not  meet  with  general  ap¬ 
probation,  see  his  “  philosophische  Untersuchungen,”  etc.,  edited  b y  Lavater, 
Zurich,  1768.  [See  Due  de  Caraman ,  Chs.  Bonnet,  Philosophe  et  Natural- 
iste,  Paris,  1859.]  The  modern  theory  of  Olshausen ,  who  regards  the 
miracles  as  a  quickening  of  the  processes  of  nature,  bears  some  resemblance 
to  the  preceding.  Lavater  believed  that  miracles  are  still  taking  place.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  the  philosophy  of  Kant,  it  is  neither  possible  absolutely  to  prove 
the  reality  of  miracles,  nor  can  their  possibility  be  absolutely  denied  (a  dif¬ 
ference  is  made  between  logical,  physical,  and  moral  possibility)  ;  see  Tief- 
trunk ,  p,  245,  ss.  (Kant,  Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen  der  blossen 
Vernunft,  p.  107,  ss.)  The  rationalists  endeavored  to  explain  the  miracu¬ 
lous  as  something  natural,  while  the  natural  philosophers  asserted  that 
nature  transfigured  by  spirit  (the  blending  of  the  two  in  one)  is  the  only 
true  miracle.  But  thus  the  reality  of  the  miracle  (in  the  Scriptural  sense) 
was  destroyed,  and  it  was  regarded  as  the  symbolical  expression  of  a  specu¬ 
lative  idea.  See  Schelling ,  Methode,  p.  181,  203,  and  comp.  Bockshammer 
and  Rosenkranz ,  cited  in  Strauss,  Dogmatik,  p.  244,  ss.  [ Bockshammer 
(Freiheit  der  Widens,  transl.  by  Kaufman,  Andov.,  1840)  says,  that  what  is 
willed  in  the  spirit  of  truth  and  purity  with  a  mighty  will,  is  willed  in  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  it  is  only  a  postulate  of  reason,  that  nature  cannot  with¬ 
stand  such  a  will.  Hence  Christ  is  the  great  miracle-worker.  Rosenkranz 
(Encycl.  d.  Theol.  p.  160),  defines  miracle,  as  nature  determined  by  spirit; 
spirit  is  the  basis  of  nature,  and  hence  nature  cannot  limit  it.  This  power 
was  fully  concentrated  in  Christ.]  The  natural  interpretation  of  miracles 
rather  served  the  purposes  of  rationalism,  while  the  adherents  of  modern 
speculative  philosophy  gave  the  preference  to  the  hypothesis  that  the  mira¬ 
cles  related  in  Scripture  are  myths,  because  it  is  more  agreeable  to  the  nega¬ 
tive  tendency  of  that  school.  This  hypothesis  was  most  fully  developed  by 


§  292.  *Miracle  and  Prophecy. 


471 


Straubs,  in  his  Leben  Jesn.  [Strauss’s  Life  of  Jesus,  transl.,  3  vols.,  1836; 
reprint.  N.  Y.,  one  vol. — SeQ,  in  reply  Mill's  Christ.  Advocate  Publications, 
1841-44  ;  Norton's  Genuineness  of  Gospels,  ’55  ;  Alexander's  Christ  and 
Christianity;  Christ.  Rev.,  July,  1856;  Brit.  Quart.,  5;  For.  Qu.,  22; 
Bibl.  Sacra,  2,  8;  North  American,  July,  1860.  J.  R.  Beard ,  Voices  of 
the  Church,  in  Reply  to  Strauss,  Loud.,  1845.]  The  adherents  of  the 
mediating  theology  used  a  more  liberal,  but  also  considerate  and  cautious 
mode  of  reasoning,  in  defending  the  credibility  of  the  historical  relations  of 
the  sacred  writers.  But  some  of  them,  e.  g.  De  T Vette  and  Schleiermacher , 
also  admit  mythical  elements.  As  regards  the  idea  of  miracle  itself,  they 
make  a  distinction  between  the  objective  and  the  subjective,  and,  generally 
speaking,  adopt  the  principle  of  Augustine,  who  did  not  regard  a  miracle  as 
something  absolutely  supernatural  (comp.  Vol.  i.,  §  118,  note  1.)  See 
Schleiermacher ,  i.  p.  120  ;  De  Wette ,  p.  34  ;  Twesten,  i.  p.  357,  ss.,  and 
Nitzsch ,  p.  64,  are  more  inclined  to  admit  real  miracles.  [Also  Julius 
Muller ,  see  his  De  Miraculorum  Jes.  Christ.  Natura  et  Necessitate,  1839.] 
The  literature  is  more  fully  given  by  Bretschneider ,  Entwurf,  p.  235,  ss. 
Comp,  also  the  views  of  Herder  on  this  point,  Dogmatik,  p.  60,  the  poetical 
view  of  miracles. — A  new  construction  of  the  idea  of  miracles  in  Weisse, 
Phil.  Dogmatik,  §  119-127.  [He  says,  that  the  general  notion  of  miracle 
comprises  all  the  acts  by  which  God  revealed  himself  to  his  people,  and 
guided  their  destinies ;  the  giving  the  law  was  the  great  miracle  under  the 
Old  Testament.  He  admits,  however,  that  there  are  mythical  elements  in 
the  history.  See  also  Lange's  Dogmatik,  i.,  and  Schenkel,  i. —  Wardlaw,  on 
Miracles  (1852,  N.  Y.,  1853),  and  Trench ,  take  different  views  as  to  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  miracle  and  doctrine  :  according  to  the  former  the  miracle  proves 
the  doctrine ;  the  latter  is  inclined  to  the  converse  position.  (Comp.  Jour¬ 
nal  Sac.  Lit.,  April,  ’54;  Thornwell ,  in  South.  Presb.  Rev.,  1856,  and 
South.  Qu.  Rev.,  July,  1857  ;  Princeton  Rev.,  Oct.,  ’53,  April,  ’56.) — Alex¬ 
ander  in  his  Christ  of  Christianity,  classifies  the  definitions  of  miracle.  On 
the  general  questions,  see  L.  Woods,  Works,  vol.  iv. ;  N.  W.  Taylor ,  Lects. 
on  Theology,  1858. — Baden  Powell  in  his  Order  of  Nature,  1859,  and  his 
essay  on  the  Evidences  (in  the  Essays  and  Reviews,  9th  ed.,  1861),  attacks 
the  whole  argument  from  miracles ;  comp.  D.  R.  Goodwin  in  Am.  Theol. 
Rev.,  July,  ’61;  and  Christ.  Remembr.,  July,  ’61.] 

*  Among  orthodox  theologians,  Bengel  and  Crusius  in  particular  treated 
of  prophetic  theology,  and  attached  great  importance  not  only  to  the 
prophecies,  but  also  to  the  types  of  the  Old  Testament  (comp.  §  277). 
The  latter  supernaturalists  did  not  go  quite  so  far.  After  the  antiquity  of 
some  prophecies  ( e .  g.  those  of  Daniel)  had  been  impugned,  and  the  Mes¬ 
sianic  prophecies  had  been  referred  to  other  historical  events,  the  rationalists  at 
last  maintained  that  in  the  Old  Testament  there  are  no  prophecies  at  all 
referring  to  Christ,  to  say  nothing  of  the  types.  See  Echermann,  Theolo- 
gische  Beitrage,  i.  1,  p.  7,  ss.,  and  comp,  the  literature  given  by  Bretschneider, 
Entwurf,  p.  207,  ss.  The  adherents  of  the  modern  moderate  orthodoxy  did 
not  pay  so  much  attention  to  the  announcement  of  particular  and  more  in¬ 
cidental  events  as  to  the  internal  necessity  of  the  historical  development  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  in  which  the  earlier  periods  are  prophetic  of  those 


472 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  op  Criticism. 


which  take  place  in  later  times,  and  according  to  which  everything  finds 
its  higher  fulfilment  in  Christ,  who  is  the  centre  of  the  history  of  the  world. 
See  Herder ,  Dogmatik,  p.  196,  ss.  Schleiermacher ,  Darstellung  des  theo- 
logisclien  Studiums,  §  46  ;  Glaubenslehre,  i.  p.  105.  There  is,  however,  a 
difference  of  opinion  between  Twesten ,  i.  p.  372,  ss.,  and  Nitzsch ,  p.  66,  on 
the  one  haud,  and  De  Wette ,  p.  36  (§  24,  5),  and  Hase,  p.  209,  on  the  other. 
— Hofmann  in  his  Weissagung  und  Erfiillung  (Nordlingen,  1841-4,  2  Thle. 
and  in  his  Schriftbeweis,  1852  [new  ed.,  1859],  endeavors  (in  the  sense  of  a 
speculative  mysticism)  to  give  a  profounder  view  of  the  idea  of  prophecy. 
Lutz  (1849),  represents  a  cautious  hermeneutics;  see  particularly  2  Divis. 
C.  1  and  2.  [On  Hofmann ,  see  Princeton  Rev.,  April,  1859.  Comp,  also 
Delitzsch,  Bibl-proph.  Theologie,  1845.  Havernick ,  Tlieol.  des  alten  Test., 
1848.  Reinke,  Messianische  Weissagungen,  Giessen,  2,  1860.  G.  Baur , 
Geschichte  der-  alttestamentlichen  Weissagung.  Giessen,  1861,  Tholuck , 
Die  Proplieten  und  ihre  Weissagungen,  2te.  Aull.,  1861.  Hengstenberg' s 
Christology,  transl.  by  Reuel  Keith ,  3,  1836  ;  new  edition,  with  Hengsten- 
berg’s  modified  views,  in  Clark’s  Foreign  Theol.  Library,  4  vols.,  1854-8. 
The  Messianic  prophecies  are  also  fully  discussed  in  John  Pye  Smith's 
Scripture  Testimony,  3  vols.  Among  the  older  works,  see  John  Davison, 
d.  1834),  Disc,  on  Prophecy,  5th  ed.,  Oxf.,  1845,  delivered  at  the  Warbur- 
tonian  Lecture,  1825  ;  in  the  same  series,  Lectures  by  Hurd ,  Hares ,  Pear¬ 
son ,  Nolan ,  McCaul ,  etc. — John  Madaurin ,  Evang.  Proph.  relating  to  the 
Messiah  (Works,  Goold's  ed.,  1860,  vol.  2). — The  nature  of  prophecy  is 
discussed  by  S.  Lee ,  Cambr.,  1849;  S.  H.  Turner ,  Origin,  Character,  etc., 
of  Proph.,  1852;  Moses  Stuart ,  Hints,  2d  ed.,  1842;  P.  Fairbairn  (of 
Glasgow),  Nature  and  Functions,  Edbg.,  1856,  Phila.,  1857  ;  W.  Lee  in  his 
Lectures  on  Inspiration,  Lect.  iv. — Bunsen's  views  are  rehearsed  by  Rowland 
Williams  in  the  (Oxford)  Essays  and  Reviews.] 

The  views  of  Swedenborg  concerning  the  nature  and  significance  of  the  sacred  Scrip' 
tares  were  peculiar ;  see  Hauler ,  Swedenborgs  Ansicht  von  der  heiligen  Schrift  (Tubinger 
Zeitschrift,  1840,  part  4,  p.  32,  ss.)  He  regarded  (like  the  supernaturalists)  the  Scriptures 
as  the  Word  of  God,  but  he  differed  from  the  latter  in  applying  this  appellation  not  to 
what  we  commonly  call  the  sacred  Scriptures,  but  to  another  Scripture  antecedent  to 
ours — viz.,  the  Scripture  of  angels,  which  is  both  antecedent  and  superior  to  the  terres¬ 
trial.  As  regards  the  empirical  Scriptures,  he  has  his  own  Canon  (comp.  Hauler ,  p.  80), 
and  in  the  writings,  which  he  admits  as  canonical,  he  makes  a  distinction  between  those 
passages  in  which  God  himself  speaks  (quando  e  cathedra  loquitur),  and  those  in  which 
angels  speak  in  his  name.  But  even  in  these  cases  a  new  revelation  is  necessary,  that  the 
spiritual  meaning  of  Scripture  may  be  apprehended  by  all  readers.  This  spiritual  sense, 
too,  is  a  sense  before  the  sense,  to  which  we  cannot  attain  by  rising  from  beneath  up¬ 
ward,  but  which  must  be  imparted  from  above  downward. — Play  with  symbols  and  an¬ 
alogies. — Swedenborg’s  doctrine  about  the  Scriptures  was  closely  connected  with  his 
christological  views. — On  Oetinger's  “  massive”  views  of  Scripture,  see  the  Preliminaries 
to  his  Theology  (Stuttg.,  1842),  and  Auberten,  p.  339,  sq et  passim. 

As  regards  the  relation  in  which  the  Old  Testament  stands  to  the  New,  we  find  that 
those  rationalists  who,  after  the  example  of  Kant,  regarded  the  sacred  Scriptures  merely 
as  a  means  of  edification,  made  but  a  slight  distinction  between  the  one  and  the  other, 
because  there  was  in  the  Old  Test.  (e.  g.  in  the  book  of  Proverbs)  much  that  was  subser¬ 
vient  to  moral  purposes.  Nor  did  they  concern  themselves  much  about  the  difference 
between  canonical  and  apocryphal  writings  (some  even  preferred  the  book  of  Jesus 


§  292.  Miracle  and  Prophecy. 


473 


Sirach  to  the  writings  of  Paul  and  John.) — But  even  some  orthodox  theologians  were 
induced,  by  idealistic  and  poetical  tendencies,  to  give  the  preference  to  the  Old  Testament. 
Thus  Herder  is  manifestly  more  supernaturalistic  in  respect  to  the  Old  Testament,  than  to 
the  New.  De  Wette ,  too,  was  inclined  to  concede  to  the  Old  Test,  (so  far  as  religion 
must  assume  an  aesthetic  form)  on  account  of  its  sacred  poetry,  a  higher  rank  than  to  the 
New  (see  his  Religion  und  Theologie,  212).  Umbreit  also  has  this  tendency  in  a  special 
degree. — On  the  other  hand,  some  rationalists  attached  greater  importance  to  the  New 
Testament.  Comp.  Wegscheider,  T.  i.  c.  1.  §  32.  Schleiermacher,  in  harmony  with  his 
entire  theological  system,  ascribed  normative  authority  to  the  New  Testament  alone,  as¬ 
serting  that  the  Old  Testament  has  only  historical  significance ;  G-laubenslehre,  ii.  §  132. 
The  advocates  of  modern  supernaturalism  have  again  attached  special  importance  to  the 
Old  Testament,  and  written  elaborate  expositions  upon  its  christology  and  eschatology 
(e.  g.  Hengstenberg ,  Haver  nick,  Auberlen,  Hofmann ,  Kurtz ,  Delitzsch ,  Baumgarten).  On  the 
other  hand,  a  more  critical  and  historical  point  of  view  has  been  taken  by  Bleek ,  Hitzig , 
Vatke,  Knobel,  Stdhelin ,  and  others ;  while  Ewald  represents  a  peculiar  tendency. 


SECOND  DIVISION. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER.  '  CREATION  AND  PROVIDENCE. 
THE  DOCTRINE  CONCERNING  ANGELS 

AND  DEVILS. 

§  293. 

DEISM.  THEISM.  PANTHEISM. 

[ George  Weissenborn ,  Vorlesungen  iiber  Pantheismus  und  Theismus,  Marburg.,  1859. 
Edward  Bohmer,  De  Pantheismi  Nominis  Origine  et  Usu  et  Notione,  Halse  Saxo- 
num,  1851.] 

The  contrast  between  Rationalism  and  the  earlier  Supernatural- 
ism  manifested  itself  less  distinctly  in  the  doctrine  concerning  God, 
and  the  relation  in  which  he  stands  to  the  world.  The  adherents 
of  both  systems  retained  the  theistic  distinction  between  God  and 
the  world,  though  they  often  degenerated  into  a  dead  and  mechan¬ 
ical  deism.  There  was,  however,  this  difference,  that  the  su¬ 
pernaturalist  admitted  occasional  acts  of  interference  on  the  part 
of  God  in  the  workings  of  the  machine,  which  otherwise  ran  on 
of  itself  in  its  regular  course,1  while  this  was  denied  by  the 
more  strict  Rationalists.  Of  greater  importance  is  the  distinc¬ 
tion  between  this  theistico-deistic  theory  and  the  pantheistic  sys¬ 
tem.2  The  latter  in  some  cases  has  shown  itself  partly  as  pure 
pantheism  (atheistic  in  fact),  sometimes  as  theism,  which  has  the 
appearance  of  pantheism  only  as  contrasted  with  the  dead  deism, 
referred  to.3 

1  Thus  in  the  case  of  answers  granted  to  prayer,  and  of'  miracles. 
Compare  the  mechanical  theory  of  miracles  propounded  by  Reinhard ,  p. 
230,  ss. 

2  Pantheism  has  been  very  differently  defined.  According  to  Wegschei- 
der ,  p.  250,  Pantheism  is  :  Ea  sententia,  qua  naturam  divinam  mundo  sup- 
ponunt  et  Deum  ac  mundum  unum  idemque  esse  statuunt.  Both  rationalists 
and  supernaturalists  have  on  moral  grounds  combated  this  kind  of  panthe¬ 
ism,  even  the  mere  appearance  of  it ;  the  adherents  of  the  speculative  phil¬ 
osophy,  however,  rejected  this  definition :  see  Hegel ,  Encyclopaedic,  2d 
edit.,  p.  521.  [Rohmer,  De  Pantheismi  Nom.  etc.,  ubi  supra,  says,  that  the 

word  pantheism  was  first  used  in  the  title  to  one  of  Poland’s  books,  1705 


§  293.  Deism.  Theism.  Pantheism. 


475 


(Soeinianisme  truly  stated.  . .  .to  which  is  prefixed  Indifference  in  Disputes 
recommended  by  a  Pantheist  to  an  Orthodox  Friend) ;  also  in  his  Pantheis- 
ticum,  s.  Formula  celebranda  Societatis  Socraticae,  1720.  It  is  not  alluded 
to  by  Bentley  or  Bayle. —  Weissenborn ,  ubi  supra,  defines  pantheism  as  the 
system  which  identifies  God  and  the  all  of  things ,  or  the  unity  of  things. 
There  have  been  six  forms  :  1.  Mechanical,  or  materialistic — God  the  mechan¬ 
ical  unity  of  existence.  2.  Ontological  (abstract  unity)  pantheism — the 
one  substance  in  all ;  Spinoza.  3.  Dynamic  pantheism.  4.  Psychical  pan¬ 
theism — God  is  the  soul  of  the  World.  5.  Ethical  pantheism — God  is  the 
universal  moral  order;  Fichte.  6.  Logical  pantheism:  Hegel.] 

8  Thus  Herder  said  concerning  Spinoza :  he  was  an  archtheist  before  all 
theists  (Dogmatik,  p.  129,  comp,  his  discourses,  especially  that  on  God.)  A 
controversy  was  carried  on  respecting  the  Pantheism  of  Schleiermacher  (as 
seeu  particularly  in  his :  Reden  uber  die  Religion) ;  he  was  charged  with 
holding  pantheistic  principles  by  Rohr ,  but  defended  by  Karsten  (Rostock, 
1835).  Henke  pronounced  a  more  favorable  opinion  respecting  the  theis- 
tico-pantheistic  tendency: — Lineam.  §  xxvi :  Summa  autem  injuria  omnes 
illi  Atheorum  numero  accensentur,  qui  summum  Numen  ab  hoc  universo 
secretum  ac  disparatum  cogitare  nesciunt,  maluntque  Deum  rerum  omnium 
causam  immanentem  quam  transeuntem  dici,  nec  tamen  id,  quod  perpetuo 
est ,  commiscent  cum  illo,  quod  perpetuo  fit.  Quorum  error,  profecto  magis 
fanaticus  quam  impius,  Pantheismus  et  Spinozismus  vocatur,  si  modo  error 
est  JSTuminis,  omnibus  rebus  prgesentissimi  cogitatio,  a  qua  neque  ipse  Paulus 
admodum  abhorruisse  videtur  (Act.  xvii.  27-29)  et  quae  amice  satis  con- 
ciliari  potest  cum  Numinis  moribus  intelligentium  naturarum  providentis 
notione.  Comp.  Hase,  Dogmatik,  p.  150. — Modern  orthodox  theologians 
and  philosophers  are  laboring  so  to  represent  the  doctrine  of  a  personal  God, 
that  we  may  apprehend  him  neither  (in  the  manner  of  the  deists)  as  existing 
without  and  separate  from  the  world ;  nor  (in  the  manner  of  the  pantheists) 
as  existing  merely  in  and  wholly  connected  with  the  world ;  but  (in  the  man¬ 
ner  of  the  theists)  as  a  being  that  exists  at  the  same  time  in  arid  above  the 
world,  and  yet  distinctly  separated  from  it.  Atheism  comes  out,  naked  and 
unveiled  in  Feuerbach’s  Essence  of  Christianity,  p.  20 :  “  The  divine  essence 
is  nothing  but  the  human  essence,  or,  better  still,  the  nature  of  man  purified, 
freed  from  the  limits  of  the  individual  man,  and  viewed  objectively,  i.  e. 
contemplated  and  reverenced  as  another  nature,  distinguished  from  man. 
All  determinations  (definitions)  of  the  divine  nature  are  therefore  human 
determinations.”* 

*  The  materialism  represented  by  Vogt,  Moleschott ,  Buchner ,  and  others,  lies  of  course 
outside  of  the  history  of  doctrines.  [The  chief  work  of  Moleschott  is  his  Kreislauf  des 
Lebens,  1852.  Rudolf  Wagner,  against  materialism  in  his  Menschenschopfung  und  Sec- 
tensubstanz,  1824,  and,  Ueber  Wissen  und  Glauben,  1854.  Vogt  replied  in  his  Kohler- 
glaube  und  Wissenschaft,  4te.  Aufl.,  1856.  L.  Buchner,  Kraft  und  Stoff,  2te.  Aufl.,  1858  : 
and,  Natur  und  G-eist,  1851.  H.  Czolbe,  Neue  Darstellung  des  Sensualismus,  1855.  In 
reply  to  the  materialists:  SchaUer ,  Leib  und  Scele,  3te.  Ausg.,  1858;  F  Fabri,  Briefe 
gpgen  des  Materialismus,  1856:  R.  Wagner,  Kampf  um  die  Seele,  1857:  Frauenstadt , 
Der  Materialismus  (against  Buchner) ;  TJlrici  in  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  Philosophie,  1860. — On 
the  recent  English  atheism,  “Secularism,”  ( Rolyoake ,  Holdreth ),  see  Christ.  Exam.,  Nov., 
1859 :  on  Rennet,  see  Isaac  Taylor,  in  North  British,  Nov.,  I860.] 


476 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


§  294. 

THE  EXISTENCE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 

Up  to  the  time  of  Kant,  theologians  continued  to  prove  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  God  much  in  the  same  way  as  had  been  done  in  former  periods, 
some  laying  greater  stress  upon  one  mode  of  argumentation,  others 
endeavoring  to  demonstrate  the  superiority  of  another.1  But  after 
Kant  showed  that  the  usual  arguments  do  not  establish  what  they  are 
intended  to  prove,2  and  had  substituted  the  moral  argument,3  these 
proofs  gradually  disappeared  from  the  German  scientific  works  on  the 
subject.  The  jphysico-theological  proof,  however,  was  retained,  be¬ 
cause  of  its  adaptation  to  the  wants  of  the  people  and  the  young.4 * 
Schleiermaclier  returned  to  man’s  original  consciousness  of  God, 
which  is  antecedent  to  all  proofs,6  and  most  modern  theologians 
followed  his  example  ;  while  the  adherents  of  the  speculative  philos¬ 
ophy  again  pointed  out  the  more  profound  significance  of  the  former 
arguments.6  The  same  maybe  said  in  reference  to  the  divine  attri¬ 
butes,7  which  Schleiermacher  regarded  as  subjective,  i.  e.  as  the 
reflex  of  the  consciousness  of  God  in  man.8  On  the  other  hand,  the 
speculative  philosophers  ascribed  to  them  reality,  though  in  a  differ¬ 
ent  sense  from  that  commonly  attached  to  this  expression.9 

1  F melon ,  Demonstration  de  l’Existence  de  Dieu,  Par.,  1712.  The  Onto¬ 
logical  argument  was  propounded  by  Mendelssohn,  Morgenstunden,  Berlin, 

1785,  and  others;  the  cosmological  by  Baumgarten ,  Glaubenslehre,  i.  (Ap¬ 
pendix  to  §  13,  p.  923)  ;  th q  physico-theological  by  Derham ,  Physico-theology, 
or  a  Demonstration  of  the  Being  and  Attributes  of  God  from  his  Works, 
Lond.,  1714  ;  Sander ,  Bonnet ,  and  many  others. 

3  In  his:  Kritik  der  reinen  Vernunft,  iii.  3,  p.  611,  ss.  (3d  edit.  Riga, 

1790).  In  his  opinion  the  existence  of  God  can  be  proved  on  speculative 

grounds  only  in  a  threefold  manner ;  either  by  the  physico-theological,  or  the 

cosmological,  or  the  ontological  argument.  These  are  the  only  modes  of 

argumentation,  nor  is  it  possible  that  there  should  be  more.— The  ontological 
proof  is  not  admissible ,  because  its  advocates  confound  a  logical  predicate 

with  a  real.  “  A  hundred  real  dollars  do  not  contain  anything  more  than  a 
hundred  possible ....  But  in  reference  to  my  property  a  hundred  real  dollars 
are  more  than  the  mere  idea  of  that  sum  (i.  e.  of  its  possibility.”) . . . . w  The 
idea  of  a  supreme  being  is  in  many  respects  a  very  profitable  idea  ;  but  be¬ 
cause  it  is  a  mere  idea ,  it  cannot  by  itself  enlarge  our  knowledge  of  that 
which  exists  for  a  “  man  might  as  well  increase  his  knowledge  by  mere 
ideas,  as  a  merchant  augment  his  property  by  adding  some  ciphers  to  the 
sum  total  on  his  books.”  (Comp.  Gaunilo  against  Anselm  ;  ante,  vol.  i.,  p. 
434.)  In  opposition  to  the  cosmological  proof  he  urged  that  “  its  advocates 

commit  an  Ignoratio  elenchi,  i.  e.  they  promise  to  show  us  a  new  way,  but 


§  294.  The  Existence  and  Attributes  of  God. 


477 


bring  ns  back  to  the  old  (ontological)  proof,  because  their  argument  is 
also  founded  on  a  dialectic  fiction.”  In  reference  to  the  physico-theological 
proof  he  said  :  “This  argument  is  always  deserving  of  our  respect.  It  is  the 
earliest,  clearest,  and  most  adapted  to  common  sense.  It  enlivens  the  study 
of  nature,  from  which  also  it  derives  its  existence,  and  through  which  it 
obtains  new  vigor.  It  shows  to  us  an  object  and  designs  where  we  should 
not  have  discovered  these  by  independent  observation,  and  enlarges  our 
knowledge  of  nature  by  making  us  acquainted  with  a  special  unity  whose 
principle  is  above  nature.  But  this  knowledge  exerts  a  reacting  influence 
upon  its  cause — viz.  the  idea  from  which  it  derives  its  origin ;  and  thus  it 
confirms  the  belief  in  a  supreme  creator,  so  that  it  becomes  an  irresistible 
conviction. — Nevertheless  this  argument  cannot  secure  apodictical  certainty  : 
at  the  utmost  it  might  prove  the  existence  of  a  builder  of  the  world ,  but 
not  of  a  creator  of  the  world  I 

8  Comp.  Raymund  of  Sabunde,  vol.  i.,  p.  437.  Kant ,  Kritik  der  reinen 
Vernunft,  p.  832  ss. ;  Kritik  der  praktischen  Vernunft,  p.  233  ss.  Morality, 
and  a  degree  of  happiness  befitting  it,  are  the  two  elements  constituting  the 
supreme  good.  But  the  virtuous  do  not  always  attain  it.  There  must,  there¬ 
fore,  be  a  compensation  in  the  world  to  come.  (Thus  the  same  argument 
is  used  to  prove  the  immortality  of  the  soul.)  At  the  same  time  there  must 
be  a  being  that  possesses  both  the  requisite  intelligence  and  the  will  to  bring 
about  this  compensation.  Hence  the  existence  of  God  is  a  postulate  of  prac¬ 
tical  reason. 

4  Especially  in  England ;  see  W.  Palsy ,  Natural  Theology,  or  Evidences 
of  the  existence  and  attributes  of  the  Deity,  16th  edit.,  1817  ;  translated 
into  German,  Manh.,  1823;  with  additions  by  Lord  Brougham  and  Sir 
Charles  Bell ,  translated  into  German  by  Haujf \  Stuttg.,  1837.  The  Bridge- 
water  Treatises,  1836  ss.,  comp.  W.  Muller,  Kritik  des  physico-theologischen 
Beweises  in  Rohr's  Magazin,  vol.  iv.,  part  1,  1831*  p.  1-35. 

6  Glaubenslehre,  i.,  §  32  ss. 

8  Hegel,  Vorlesungen  fiber  die  Beweise  vom  Dasein  Gottes  ;  Appendix  to 
the  second  volume  of  his  Philosophy  of  Religion.  Strauss,  Dogmatik,  i., 
p.  400  :  “  The  cosmological  argument  proves  God  to  be  the  being  existing  in 
all  beings ;  the  physico-theological  shows  him  to  be  the  life  existing  in  all 
that  lives  ;  the  historical  and  moral  arguments  prove  that  he  is  the  moral 
governor  of  the  world;  and  lastly,  the  ontological  shows  that  he  is  the  Spirit 
existing  in  all  spirits,  the  Thought  in  all  thinking  beings.”  Comp.  Weisse, 
Phil.  Dogmatik,  i.,  §  296-366. 

7  Reinhard,  Dogmatik,  p.  90  ss.,  divided  the  attributes  of  God  into  quies¬ 
cent  and  active  attributes,  etc.  Bruch  attempted  a  new  revision  of  the 
theory  of  the  attributes  in  his  Lehre  von  den  gottlichen  Eigenschaften, 
Hamb.,  1842.  For  further  statements  see  Nitzsch,  in  the  article  God,  in 
Herzog’s  Reale  ncy  clop.,' v.  261  sq.  [On  the  immutability  of  God,  see  partic¬ 
ularly  Dorner ,  in  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theologie,  1859-60.] 

8  Glaubenslehre,  i.,  §  50. 

0  Hegel,  Encyclopaedic,  i.,  §  36,  p.  73  (see  Strauss,  Dogmatik,  i.,  p.  542.) 
Comp.  J.  P.  Lange ,  ii.  60  sq. ;  Ebrard,  i.  219  ;  Weisse,  §  482-537. 


478 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


§  295. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

Litclce,  Die  immanent©  Wesenstrinitat,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1840  ;  in  reply, 
Nitzsch,  ibid.,  1841.  [ Twesten ,  Dogmatik,  i.,  transl.  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  iii.,  iv.] 

Although  the  church  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  had  not  been  mate¬ 
rially  altered  during  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  it  was  now  at¬ 
tacked  by  numerous  opponents.  Not  only  did  Arianism  make  its 
appearance  in  England,  as  an  isolated  phenomenon,  but  various 
modifications  of  Socinianism  also  found  their  way  into  German  the¬ 
ology.1  The  rationalists,  were  properly  speaking,  pure  Unitarians  ;2 
on  the  other  hand,  some  supernaturalists  the  more  they  planted  them¬ 
selves  on  the  Biblical  standpoint,  yielded  somewhat  of  the  strict 
doctrine  of  ecclesiastical  orthodoxy.3  Swedenborg  found  the  Trin¬ 
ity  in  the”  person  of  Christ.4  The  adherents  of  the  school  of  Zinzen - 
dorf  exposed  themselves  to  the  charge  of  destroying  the  relation 
in  which  the  persons  stand  to  each  other,  by  paying  excessive  hom¬ 
age  to  the  Son.5  Modern  theologians  have  again  apprehended  the 
more  profound  speculative  basis  of  this  doctrine ;  but  while  some 
(after  the  example  of  Schleiermacher)  refer  the  Trinity,  after  the 
manner  of  Sabellius,  to  the  revealed  deity  ;6  others  (both  the  specu¬ 
lative,  and  the  strict  orthodox)  think  that  it  has  respect  to  the 
essence  of  the  deity.7  The  place  which  they  assign  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  in  their  systems,  and  the  degree  of  importance  which 
they  attach  to  it,  depend  upon  their  views  in  these  respects.8 

1  Samuel  Clarice  was  dismissed  from  his  post  as  court  preacher  (I'll 4) 
in  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  on  account  of  his  work  concerning  the  Trinity 
(1712).  He  maintained  that  the  Son  was  subordinate  to  the  Father,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  both  the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  nor  did  he  afterwards 
alter  his  opinion.  Comp.  Schlegel ,  Kirchengeschichte  des  18  Jahrhund.  ii. 
p.  746,  ss.  [See  above,  §  225,  b,  note  51,  and  §  234,  note  11.]  J.  J. 
Wettstein  compared  the  Son  of  God  to  a  prime  minister,  and  his  rela¬ 
tion  to  the  Father,  to  that  of  a  prime  minister  to  his  monarch,  or  of  a 
curate  to  his  rector;  see  Hagenbach ,  Ueber  Wettstein  in  Illgens  Zeit- 
schrift  fur  historische  Theologie.  The  theory  of  subordination  was  also 
adopted  by  other  German  theologians.  See  Tollner ,  Theologische  ITn- 
tersuchungen,  1762,  vol.  i.  part  i.  He  combated  the  opinion  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  a  fundamental  doctrine;  see  his  Yermischte 
Aufsatze,  ii.  1. 

2  According  to  Wegscheider ,  Institut.  §  93,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 

belongs  to  those  doctrines — quae  justa  auctoritate  certoque  fundamento  des- 

tituta  sunt ;  comp.  Henke ,  Lineam.  Ixix. 

8  Thus  J.  A.  Ulsperger ,  kurzgefafstes  System  seines  Yortrags  von  Gottes 

Dreieinigkeit,  Augsb.,  1777.  The  author  of  this  work  maintained,  that  the 


§  295.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 


479 


divine  predicates,  Father ,  Son ,  and  Holy  Ghost ,  have  reference  only  to  the 
work  of  redemption  (Trinity  of  revelation) ;  he  did  not  deny  a  Trinity  of 
nature,  which  he  was  willing  to  adore  as  a  mystery,  but  he  rejected  the 
idea  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  its  necessary  and  personal  pre¬ 
dicates. 

4  He  taught  that,  instead  of  a  Trinity  of  persons  (set  forth  in  the  symbols 
of  the  church),  we  must  hold  a  Trinity  of  the  person ,  by  which  he  under¬ 
stood,  that  that  which  is  divine  in  Christ  is  the  Father ,  that  the  divine 
united  with  the  human  is  the  Son ,  and  the  divine  which  proceeds  from  him 
is  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  first  Christians,  in  their  simplicity,  believed  in 
three  persons  because  they  understood  everything  in  its  literal  sense.  The 
orthodox  Trinitarians  may  also  go  to  heaven,  where  they  will  be  enlightened 
on  this  subject.  But  no  one  can  be  admitted  into  heaven  who  believes  in  the 
existence  of  three  Gods ,  though  with  his  mouth  he  may  confess  only  one  ; 
for  the  entire  life  of  heaven,  and  the  wisdom  of  all  the  angels,  is  founded 
on  the  recognition  and  confession  of  one  God,  and  on  the  belief  that  that 
one  God  is  also  man ;  and  that  hey  who  is  at  the  same  time  God  and  man, 
is  the  Lord  (Jehovah,  Zebaoth,  Shaddai.)  See  his  Divine  Revelation, 
i.  (die  Lehre  des  neuen  Jerusalem  vom  Herrn,  edit,  by  Tafel,  1823),  p. 
118,  ss. 

6  See  JBengel ,  Abriss  der  sogenannten  Brudergemeinde,  pp.  74,  75  :  “Can 
any  one  approve  of  the  doctrine  of  Zinzendorf,  who  refuses  to  attribute  the 
work  of  creation  to  the  Father,  and  maintains  that  he  (the  Father)  was 
either  ministering  to  and  assisting  his  Son,  or  looking  at  his  work,  or  enjoy¬ 
ing  divine  rest,  while  the  latter  was  creating  the  world?  who  further  ascribes 
so  many  other  things  which  also  belong  to  the  Father ,  to  the  Son  alone  ? 
who  also  ascribes  to  the  Holy  Ghost  *a  kind  of  motherhood  as  a  personal 
characteristic?  and,  lastly,  who  treats,  in  so  presumptuous  a  way,  the 
divine  doctrine  of  the  ever-blessed  Deity?”  p.  119  :  “We  ought  not  to  slip 
over  the  Son,  but  neither  also  the  Father,  as  if  he  were  of  no  account.  The 
latter,  compared  with  the  former,  is  a  new,  and  hence  a  great  pleasure  for 
the  devil.” — Bengel  also  finds  fault  with  the  familiar  style  in  which  Zinzen¬ 
dorf  treats  these  mysteries.  Comp.  p.  78,  ss.  [and  Von  der  Goltz ,  in  Jahrb. 
f.  deutsche  Theologie,'  1861.]  Wackernagel ,  Lesebuch,  iii.  p.  1063.  In  the 
Idea  Fidei  Fratrum  is  no  particular  locus  de  Trinitate,  but  a  section  concerning 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  (§  84).  The  doctrine  in  question  is  there 
simply  treated  in  its  scriptural  aspects,  to  which  is  added  :  “  It  is  not  only  vain 
and  foolish,  but  also  dangerous,  to  descend  into  the  depths  of  the  Deity,  and 
that  incomprehensible  eternity,  of  which  nothing  is  revealed  to  us.  There¬ 
fore  we  do  not  inquire  into  those  things  which  belong  to  the  depths  of  the 
Deity,  because  we  hold  such  a  course  to  be  better  than  to  endeavor  to  deter¬ 
mine  that  which  Scripture  has  not  determined.  It  clearly  teaches  us  :  God 
has  an  only-begotten  Son  whom  he  has  offered  for  us ;  there  is  also  one 
Holy  Ghost  who  is  uncreated,  but  proceeds  from  the  Father,  and  is  sent  to 
us  through  Christ.” 

8  Schleiermacher ,  Treatise  on  Sabellius  in  the  Berliner  Zeitschrift  [trans¬ 
lated  by  Moses  Stuart ,  in  Biblical  Repos.  (Andov.),  first  series,  vol.  v.]  : 
Glaubenslehre,  ii.  §  170,  ss.  p.  574,  ss.  De  Wette ,  kirkliche  Dogmatik, 


480 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


§  43,  44  (pp.  81,  82).  Twesten ,  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  179,  ss.  Lucke ,  in  the 
Studien  und  Kritiken,  1840,  part  1,  p.  91.  On  the  other  side:  Nitzsch ,  in 
the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1841,  part  2. 

7  Lessing  (Erziehung  des  Menschengeschlechtes,  §  73)  had  already  said : 
*  What  if  this  doctrine  (of  the  Trinity)  should  lead  human  reason  to  ac¬ 
knowledge,  that  God  cannot  possibly  be  understood  to  be  one ,  in  that  sense 
in  which  all  finite  things  are  one?  that  his  unity  must  be  a  transcendental 
unity  which  does  not  exclude  a  kind  of  plurality.”  Schelling ,  Methode  des 
akademischen  Studiums,  p.  102  :  “  It  is  clear  that  the  idea  of  a  Trinity  is  ab¬ 
surd,  unless  it  be  considered  on  speculative  grounds. . .  .The  incarnation  of 
God  is  an  eternal  incarnation.” ....  Comp.  p.  184.  Comp.  Hlasche,  Das 
Bose,  etc.,  pp.  106,  107.  Hegel,  Religionsphilosophie,  vol.  ii.,  p.  230,  ss. : 
“  By  God  being  a  living  spirit,  we  understand  that  he  can  distinguish  him¬ 
self  from  himself,  produce  Another,  and  in  this  Other  remain  identical  with 
himself.  This  becoming  Another,  is  the  eternal  absorption  and  yet  production 

*  of  himself.”  P.  261  :  “That  which  first  existed  was  the  idea  in  its  simple 
universality,  the  Father .  The  second  is  the  particular,  the  idea  in  its  manifes¬ 
tation,  the  Son — viz.,  the  idea  in  its  external  existence  ;  so  that  the  external 
manifestation  is  a  reflex  of  the  first,  and  is  known  as  the  divine  idea,  the 
identity  of  the  divine  with  the  human.  The  third  is  this  consciousness,  God 
as  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  this  spirit,  as  existing,  is  the  church. — Daub  makes 
a  distinction  between  Deus  a  quo ,  in  quo ,  et  cui  satis  est  Deus  ;  Theolo- 
gum.  p.  110.  Marheineke,  Dogmatik,  p.  260:  “In  a  direct  and  abstract 
sense  God  is  only  the  identity,  the  beiug  which  is  not  yet  Thought,  but 
only  Spirit,  per  se  (an  sich) — the  Father.  In  order  to  be  this  in  reality,  he 
distinguishes  himself  from  himself,  sets  himself  as  another  in  distinction  from 
himself ;  and  in  so  far  as  he  exists  for  himself  in  this  separate  existence,  he  is 
the  Son.  But  inasmuch  as  he  refers  himself  to  himself,  and  abrogates  this 
separate  existence,  he  is  a  being  existing  in  and  for  himself  [Germ.  An  und  fur 
sich  seiender],  or  Spirit.” — Concerning  the  relation  in  which  this  speculative 
Trinity  stands  to  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine,  see  Strauss ,  Dogmatik,  i.  p. 
492  ;  and  Weisse ,  Phil.  Dogmatik,  §  394-481,  especially  §  409.  The  latter, 
from  the  speculative  point  of  view,  resolves  the  Trinity  thus :  the  divine 
Reason— -the  Father ;  the  divine  heart  (Gemuth),  and  the  nature-in-God — 
the  Son  ;  the  divine  will — the  Holy  Ghost. 

8  Schleiermacher  and  Hase  assign  to  it  the  last  place  in  their  systems 
(Hase  makes  it  the  sum  and  conclusion  of  the  Christology) ;  the  adherents 
of  Hegel  the  first;  the  former  consider  it  the  topstone,  the  latter  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  the  building.  This  is  still  further  connected  with  their  views  about 
the  nature  of  religion.  JRothe  is  nearest  right,  when  he  designates  the  Trini¬ 
tarian  idea  of  God,  as  set  forth  in  Christian  speculation,  as  entirely  different 
from  the  Trinitarian  idea  in  the  church  doctrine  ;  and  he  openly  grants  that 
the  Biblical  terms,  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  designate  wholly  different  rela¬ 
tions  of  God  from  those  of  his  immanent  mode  of  being  (Theol.  Ethik,  i. 
77,  sq.)  Compare  among  the  recent  divines,  Lange ,  ii.  123,  sq.  Liebner ,  i. 
67  (criticising  the  latest  discussions).  Martensen ,  95,  sq.  Ebrard ,  i.  141,  sq. 


§  296.  Creation  and  Preservation  of  the  World.  481 


§  296. 

CREATION  and  preservation  of  the  world,  providence. 

THEODICY. 

After  the  followers  of  the  Wolfian  philosophy,  and  the  like,  had 
in  vain  endeavored  to  reconcile  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation 
with  the  results  and  hypotheses  of  their  natural  philosophy  and 
metaphysics,1  Herder ,  by  his  genial  interpretation  rescued  this  story 
from  their  hands,  and  brought  it  back  to  the  sphere  of  sacred  poetry, 
recognizing  its  internal  truthfulness.2  Since  that  time  only  a  few 
writers  have  defended  its  literal  meaning.3  The  definitions  concern¬ 
ing  the  idea  of  creation  itself ’  and  the  cognate  ideas  of  ‘preserva¬ 
tion ■,  providence ,  and  the  government  of  the  worlds  are  closely 
connected -with  the  systems  of  Deism ,  Theism ,  and  Pantheism 4 
(comp.  §  293).  The  so-called  Theodicy  (i.  e.  the  mode  of  ex¬ 
plaining  the  existence  of  evil  in  the  world)5  is  also  connected 
with  these  fundamental  views,  and  at  the  same  time  passes  over 
into  the  doctrines  respecting  demonology  and  anthropology  (see 
below). 

1  Comp,  the  views  entertained  by  Michaelis  and  others,  in  the  work  of 
Herder  (note  2)  ;  for  further  particulars  see  Bretschneider  Entwicklung,  p. 
450,  ss.  Silberschlag ,  Geogonie,  oder  Erklarung  der  mosaischen  Schop- 
fungsgeschichte,  Berlin,  1780-83,  3  volh,  4to.  New  attempts  to  save  the 
record  from  the  standpoint  of  the  natural  sciences,  by  Bucklnnd ,  Wagner, 
Pfaff,  Fabri ,  and  others.  [ Hugh  Miller ,  John  Pye  Smith,  Lyell ,  President 
Hitchcock ;  Dawes'  Archaia,  etc.]  Comp.  Ebrard ,  Die  Weltanschauung 
der  Bibel  und  die  Naturwissenschaft,  in  the  “Zukunft  der  Kirche,”  Jahrg., 
1847.  \Keil,  Die  biblische  Schopfungsgeschichte  und  die  geologische 
Erdbildungstheorien,  in  Theol.  Zeitschrift,  1860,  Aug.  Keerl ,  Der  Mensch, 
das  Ebenbild  Gottes,  i.  I860.] 

3  Herder  in  his  work,  Die  alteste  Urkunde  des  Menschengeschlects,  eine 
nach  Jalirkunderten  enthtillte  heilige  Schrift.,  1774,  ss.  (Comp,  the  review 
in  the  Allgemeine  deutsche  Bibliothek  xxv.  p.  24,  xxx.  p.  53) ;  Ideen  zur 
Philosophic  der  Geschichte  der  Menschheit,  vol.  ii.  p.  303,  ss. ;  Geist  der 
hebrseischen  Poesie,  i.  p.  139,  ss. 

3  Comp.  Bretschneider,  p.  451.  Supernaturalists  also,  such  as  Reinhard 
(p.  167,  ss.),  and  others,  conceded  something  to  modern  criticism.  In  more 
recent  times,  however,  the  theory  of  six  periods  (instead  of  days)  has  had 
earnest  advocates.  [See  Tayler  Lewis,  Six  Days  of  Creation,  and  Bible 
and  Science,  or  the  World-Problem,  1856.] 

4  The  idea  of  a  creation  out  of  nothing  is  founded  on  theistic  views  of 
the  world.  These  views  are  deistic,  when  the  creation  and  preservation  of 
the  world  are  too  much  separated  from  each  other,  and  the  connection  ex¬ 
isting  between  them  is  destroyed ;  they  become  pantheistic,  when  creation 


482  Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 

appears  as  a  mere  part  of  preservation.  Comp,  the  passages  from  the  works 
of  Fichte,  Hegel,  and  MarheineJce,  collected  by  Hase ,  p.  179  ;  and  Schleier - 
maclier,  christliche  Glanbenslehre,  i.  §40;  and  Weisse,  Phil.  Dogmatik, 
§  538-556. — Further,  the  idea  of  providence  is  theistic,  and  intimately  con¬ 
nected  with  the  idea  of  a  personal  God;  it  is  wanting  in  the  schemes  of 
deism  and  pantheism,  which  run  into  fatalism  on  the  one  side  or  the  other. 

6  C.  II.  JBlasche,  das  Bose  in  Einklange  mit  der  Weltordnung  dargestellt, 
Leipz.,  1827.  He  has  revived  the  earlier  notion,  that  evil  is  necessary  in 
order  to  form  a  contrast  with  good,  etc.  So,  too,  with  the  adherents  of  the 
latest  school.  Among  the  more  recent,  see  Roihe,  iii.  170  ;  Martensen,  107  ; 
Ebrard,  i.  201.  [Comp,  particularly  the  New  England  discussions,  on  Sin 
as  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good  :  above,  §  285,  d. J 


§  297. 

THE  DOCTRINE  CONCERNING  ANGELS  AND  DEMONS. 

During  the  prosaic  age  the  belief  in  the  existence  and  agency  of 
angels  had  almost  wholly  disappeared,  and  supernaturalists  them¬ 
selves,  who,  on  the  authority  of  Scripture,  continued  to  believe  in 
their  existence,  knew  not  what  to  do  with  them.1  On  the  other 
hand,  the  enthusiastic  Swedenborg  looked  only  the  more  boldly 
into  the  angelic  world,  hut  most  arbitrarily  substituted  the  notion 
of  glorified  men  for  the  Scriptural  idea  of  angels,  and  denied  the 
personal  existence  of  the  devil.2  The  devil  was  the  subject  of  chief 
derision  with  the  advocates  of  what  were  called  the  enlightened  views 
of  the  age.  Semler  explained  (after  the  example  of  Belcher)  the 
demoniacal  possessions  by  a  reference  to  emjDirical  psychology.4 
But  even  those  super  naturalists  who,  on  exegetical  grounds  j  believed 
in  the  reality  of  the  demoniacal  possessions  recorded  in  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament,  were  far  from  asserting  their  possibility  in  our  age.4  In  the 
present  century,  however,  the  belief  in  demoniacal  possessions  as 
affecting  the  body,  which  had  continued  to  obtain  among  the  lower 
orders  of  the  people  notwithstanding  the  progress  of  rationalism, 
was  revived  among  the  educated  classes  of  -Protestants  themselves, 
for  the  most  part  in  connection  with  the  phenomena  of  animal  mag¬ 
netism  and  clairvoyance.6  The  doctrine  concerning  the  devil  too, 
assumed  a  new  dogmatic  significancy.  Sclileier macher  vindicated  its 
poetic  rights — viz.  as  regards  sacred  poetry  ;6  while  Daub  endeav¬ 
ored  to  assign  a  kind  of  personal  existence  to  the  author  of  evil : 
the  latter,  however,  introduced  some  Manichean  elements  into  this 
doctrine.7  Most  of  our  theologians  are  now  of  opinion  that  where 
the  doctrine  concerning  sin  is  rightly  understood,  the  belief  in  the 
metaphysical  existence  of  the  devil  is  of  subordinate  importance  ; 
inasmuch  as,  according  to  the  strictness  of  Scripture,  he  belongs  at 


29T.  The  Doctrine  Concerning  Angels  .vnd  Demons.  483 


any  rate  to  the  order  of  finite  beings,  over  whose  temptations  (how¬ 
ever  they  may  show  themselves)  the  Christian  man  is  bound  to  have 
the  victory.8 — The  doctrine  respecting  angels  has  also  again  come  to 
honor  among  the  latest  writers  on  systematic  theology,  by  some 
considered  rather  in  a  philosophic  and  idealizing  sense,9  by  others 
simply  referred  to  the  Scriptural  declarations.10 

1  Thus  e.  g.  Reinhardt,  p.  176  ss.  He  does  not  venture  to  decide  which 
office  they  have  in  the  present  time  (p.  191).  jStorr,  §  49  (quoted  by  Hase , 
Dogmatik,  p.  237). 

2  Divine  Revelation,  i.,  p.  87  :  “  Men  are  always  surrounded  by  spirits  and 
angels  of  God,  who  understand  everything  spiritually,  because  they  them¬ 
selves  possess  a  spiritual  nature.  After  death  men  are  also  instructed  by 
angels,”  p.  102;  comp,  ii.,  p.  102,  126,  178,  226.  In  man}7  places  Sweden¬ 
borg  relates  his  discourses  with  angels  who,  in  his  opinion,  are  human  beings. 
Angels  breathe  as  well  as  men,  their  hearts  also  beat ;  they  breathe  accord* 
ing  to  the  measure  of  Divine  wisdom  which  they  receive  from  the  Lord ; 
their  hearts  beat  according  to  the  measure  of  Divine  love  which  they  receive 
from  the  Lord,  p.  112,  comp.  p.  220.  Angels  and  spirits  are  also  men;  for 
all  the  good  and  true  which  proceeds  from  man  is  human  in  its  form  ;  but 
the  Lord  is  the  Divine-Good,  and  the  Divine-True  itself,  hence  he  is  man 
himself,  from  whom  every  man  is  man,  i.,  p.  112.  Because  angels  are  angels 
on  account  of  the  degree  of  love  and  wisdom  which  they  possess,  and  the 
same  is  the  case  with  men,  it  is  evident,  that  on  account  of  the  good  con¬ 
nected  with  the  true,  angels  are  angels  of  heaven,  and  men  are  men  of  the 
church,  p.  157.  The  wisdom  of  angels  consists  in  the  power  to  see  and  to 
apprehend  what  they  think,  p.  213.  All  that  takes  place  in  the  spiritual 
world,  is  correspondence  ;  for  it  is  in  correspondence  with  the  inclinations  of 
angels  and  spirits  ;  p.  250. — In  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  that 
the  angels  were  first  created,  and  that  the  devil  is  a  fallen  angel,  Swedenborg 
professes  (p.  180)  that  he  was  taught  by  the  angels  themselves,  that  in  the 
whole  heaven  there  is  not  one  single  angel  who  was  created  at  first,  nor  in 
the  whole  of  hell  one  single  devil  who  was  created  as  an  angel  of  light,  etc. 
but  that  all  angels ,  both  in  heaven  and  in  hell,  derive  their  origin  from  the 
human  race. — Hell  and  devil  are  one  and  the  same,  and  angels  and  heaven 
are  one  and  the  same ;  comp.  p.  303.  That  which  is  in  man — viz.  his  spirit — 
is,  according  to  its  true  nature,  an  angel,  p.  281,  therefore  man  is  created  to 
become  an  angel,  p.  289.  In  some  places  Swedenborg  understands  the 
Scriptural  term  angel  in  a  symbolical  sense.  Comp.  vol.  ii.,  p.  6,  16,  18,  52, 
307. 

3  De  Daemoniacis,  1760  (4th  ed.,  1779.) — Versuch  einer  biblischen  Daemo- 
nologie,  Halle,  1776. 

4  Reinhard ,  p.  185  ss.,  p.  206,  speaks  only  of  those  diseases  which  the 
devil  is  said  to  have  caused  in  the  times  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  Comp.  p. 
211.  “We  admit  such  corporeal  possessions  in  the  narratives  of  the  gospel 
only  on  the  testimony  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  Accordingly,  as  long  as 
such  an  authentic  testimony  is  wanting  in  modern  times,  no  man  is  justified 


484 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


in  maintaining  that  a  diseased  man  is  truly  possessed  with  a  devil.”  Comp, 
Storr,  §  52  (quoted  by  Ilase,  p.  238.)  [On  Farmer ,  see  §  292,  note  1.] 

6  The  exorcisms  practised  by  Gassner ,  a  member  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  (from  the  year  1773).  See  Walch ,  neueste  Religionsgeschichte,  vol. 
vi.,  p.  371,  p.  541  ss.  Justinus  Kerner  (who  belongs  to  the  Protestant 
Church),  Die  Scherin  von  Prevorst,  Stuttg.,  1832,  2  vols. ;  Ueber  das  Bes- 
essensein,  Heilbr.,  1833.  Geschichte  Bessessener  neuerer  Zeit,  nebst  Rcflexi- 
onen  vo nEschenmayer,  Karlsruhe,  1836. 

8  Glaubenslehre,  i.  §  45,  p.  243. 

7  Judas  Ischariot,  oder  das  Bose  im  Verhaltnisse  zum  Guten  betrachtet,  2 
parts  in  3  sections.  Heidelb.  1816-19.  Comp.  Kant ,  Religion  innerhalb 
der  Grenzen  der  blossen  Yernunft,  p.  99  ss.  Among  the  recent  divines  Mar¬ 
tens  cn  has  endeavored  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  devil  on  biblical  and 
speculative  grounds;  Dogmatik,  170  sq.  LucJce ,  in  reply  in  the  Zeitschrift 
f.  Christl.  Wissenschaft,  Febr.,  1851.  Ebrard  (i.  392)  shows  the  difference 
between  the  Biblical  representations  and  the  later  perversions.  See  also 
Lange ,  ii.  559,  sq.  [Twesten  on  Doctrine  respecting  Angels,  transl.  from 
his  Dogmatik,  in  Biliotheca  Sacra,  i.  768-793,  ii.  108-140.  Whately ,  Scrip¬ 
tural  Doctrine  of  Good  and  Evil  Spirits,  Bond.,  1851.  Prof.  Stuart ,  on 
Angelology,  in  Robinson’s  Bib.  Sacra,  1843.  Analogues  of  Satan,  Christ. 
Exam.,  July,  1860;  Theory  of  Personal  Devil,  ibid.,  Sept.,  1861.  Letters 
to  the  Rev.  W.  E.  Channing,  on  the  Existence  and  Agency  of  Fallen  Spirits. 
By  Canonicus,  Boston,  1828.] 

8  Kant ,  1.  c.,  p.,  66.  Twesten ,  Dogmatik,  ii.,  p.  331  ss.,  Comp.  p.  358- 
360. 

'  * 

8  Martensen ,  Dogmatik,  119,  conceives  of  the  Angel-world,  as  the  “  world 
of  ideas  ;”  but  “  not  ideas  as  they  stand  before  abstract  thought,  but  ideas 
viewed  as  living  powers,  acting  spirits.”  The  notion  of  personality  he  con¬ 
siders  as  changeable.  “From  the  storm-wind  that  executes  the  orders  of  the 
Lord,  to  the  seraph  that  stands  before  his  throne,  there  is  a  manifold  variety 
of  angelic  beings ;”  and  “  no  speculation  will  ever  be  in  a  condition  to  decide 
how  far  there  may  be  powers  in  creation,  having  such  spirituality,  that  with 
personal  consciousness  they  may  serve  or  resist  the  Creator.”  Lange  thinks 
that  the  angels  are  the  spirits  of  the  primeval  world,  ii.  578  sq.  Weisse 
(Phil.  Dogmatik),  tries  in  respect  to  the  angels  to  “  steer  clear  of  the  Scylla 
of  dogmatic  superstition,  as  well  as  the  Charybdis  of  materialistic  unbelief ;” 
and  he  does  this  by  recurrence  to  the  Bohme’s  idea  of  “  nature-spirits ,  and 
fountain-spirits ,”  and  bringing  them  into  connection  with  the  attribute  of 
God’s  glory. 

10  Ebrard ,  Dogmatik,  i.  276  sq. 


THIRD  DIVISION. 


ANTHROPOLOGY.  CHRISTOLOGY.  SOTERIOLOGY,  AND  THE 

ECONOMY  OF  REDEMPTION. 

§  298. 

THE  DOCTRINES  CONCERNING  MAN,  SIN  AND  LIBERTY. 

We  should  expect,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  in  an  age  in  which 
philosophical  and  theological  works  were  full  of  “  Philanthropy  and 
humanity  ”  much  would  be  said  concerning  the  nature,  dignity  and 
destination  of  man.1  In  opposition  to  Augustine's  views,  the  excel¬ 
lency  of  the  human  nature  was  extolled,  and  (after  the  example  of 
Rousseau)  many  indulged  in  fanciful  representations  of  the  ideal 
state  of  man.2  While  enlightened  theologians  erased  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin  from  their  systems,3  Kant  on  the  contrary,  himself 
pointed  out  the  radical  evil  in  man,  but  did  not  understand  by  it 
original  sin  in  its  ecclesiastical  usage.4  The  adherents  of  the  later 
speculative  philosophy  were  also  far  from  believing  that  the  natural 
state  of  man  was  the  normal  one :  they  admitted  that  he  had  fallen 
from  his  original  state,  that  a  reconciliation  had  become  necessary, 
and  attached  little  importance  to  the  Pelagian  idea  of  liberty,  upon 
which  the  rationalists  had  laid  great  stress.  But  a  closer  examina¬ 
tion  of  their  theory  showed  that  this  kind  of  original  sin  was  identi¬ 
cal  with  the  finite  character  of  human  nature  and  human  con¬ 
sciousness,  and  was  a  mere  matter  of  natural  necessity  :  so  that 
the  idea  of  sin  and  responsibility  was  destroyed,  and  a  doctrine  intro¬ 
duced  which  would  prove  fatal  to  the  ethical  standpoint,  which 
.rationalism  had  maintained  from  regard  to  practical  morality.5  In 
opposition  to  both  these  tendencies  (the  rationalistic  and  the  specu¬ 
lative)  the  Pietists,  and  those  theologians  who  returned  to  the  old 
faith  of  the  church,  revived  the  doctrine  of  Augustine  in  its  essential 
points,6  to  which  the  followers  of  Schleiei'maclier  and  those  of  like 
tendencies  also  adhered,  though  with  various  modifications.7  On 
the  other  hand,  the  idealistic  view  of  man,  as  God  awakening  to 
consciousness,  was  pressed  with  all  its  energy  by  the  left  side  of  the 
Hegelian  school  ;  and  of  course  sin  was  regarded  as  only  a  vanishing 


486 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


factor."  But  thus  it  became  only  the  more  apparent,  that  at  pres¬ 
ent  the  regeneration  of  the  church  and  of  theology  are  chiefly  to  be 
expected  from  a  right  understanding  of  the  doctrine  concerning 
sin.9 

J  1  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  physical  and  psychological  anthropology, 
which  had  formerly  been  treated  in  connection  with  systematic  theology,  was 
now  separated  from  it.  Man  was  made  the  subject  of  philosophical  trea¬ 
tises  written  in  a  popular  style.  See  Pope ,  Essay  on  Man,  1733.  Spalding , 
Bestimmung  desMenschen,  Lpz.,  1748.  J.  J.  Zollikofer ,  Predigten  tiber  die 
Wtirde  des  Menschen,  Lpz.,  1783.  J.  Ith ,  Anthropologie  oder  Philosophie 
des  Menschen,  vol.  i.  Winterthur,  1803.  (For  further  particulars  Hret* 
schneider ,  Entwurf,  p.  493,  ss.)  Herder  has  most  ably  represented  man  in 
his  purely  human  aspect. 

2  Comp.  §  275.  The  modern  system  of  education  was,  in  particular 
founded  on  the  doctrine  of  the  excellency  of  human  nature.  Comp.  Campe , 
Theophron,  1806,  p.  234,  ss. 

3  Steinbart  (in  the  5th  section  of  his :  System  der  reinen  Philosophie). 
Henke,  Lineamenta,  lxxxi. :  Cavendum  est,  ne  hanc  peccandi  facultatem, 
hunc  vitiorum  fomitem  cum  ipsis  vitiis,  ignis  materiam  cum  incendio  permis- 
ceamus,  atque  propterea  totum  genus  humanum  perditum,  corruptum,  prop¬ 
ter  hanc  suam  indolem  displicere  Deo,  vel  parvulos  adeo  recens  in  lucem 
editos  indignationi  divinae  obnoxios  esse  dicamus,  quod  ne  de  catulis  quidem 
sanus  quisquam  ausit  dicere,  etc.  Quae  omnia  (he  then  continues,  p.  lxxxi v.) 
ambiguitatis  et  erroris  plena  commenta  sunt,  pro  lubitu  arrepta,  et  prseter 
sanse  rationis  ac  scripturse  sacrse  assensum. 

4  Vom  radicalen  Bosen  in  der  menschlichen  Natur  (Berliner  Monatsscrift, 
April,  1792) ;  Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen  der  blossen  Vernunft,  etc. 
(against  the  fantasies  of  pedagogues,  pp.  4  and  5).  The  natural  tendency 
to  evil  manifests  itself  in  three  different  ways:  1.  As  frailty  (fragilitas)  ; 
2.  As  impurity  (impuritas,  improbitas)  ;  3.  As  malice  and  perversity 
(vitiositas,  pravitas,  perversitas).  The  proposition  :  Man  is  evil,  means,  that 
he  is  conscious  of  the  moral  law,  but  he  thinks  it  consistent  with  his  princi¬ 
ples  of  action,  occasionally  to  deviate  from  it.  The  proposition  :  lie  is 
by  nature  wicked,  means,  he  is  wicked  as  belonging  to  the  genus  humanum.' 
(Vitiis  nemo  sine  nascitur,  Horat.)  This  tendency  (to  evil)  has  not  its 
origin  in  the  sensuality  of  man,  but  in  his  liberty,  hence  he  is  responsible 
for  it.  There  are  also  different  degrees  of  innate  guilt  (reatus).  The  culpa 
corresponds  to  frailty  and  impurity ;  the  dolus  (dolus  malus)  corresponds  to 
malice. — Nevertheless  Kant  maintains  (p.  37)  that  of  all  theories  respecting 
the  propagation  of  this  original  evil,  that  is  the  most  incorrect,  which  repre¬ 
sents  us  as  having  inherited  it  from  our  first  parents  ;  for  what  the  poet  says 
in  reference  to  good,  may  also  be  applied  to  moral  evil :  Genus  et  proavos, 
et  quce  non  fecimus  ipsi ,  vix  ea  nostra  puto. — In  his  opinion  the  narrative  of 
Adam’s  fall  is  only  a  symbol,  which  he  explains  according  to  his  principles 
of  moral  interpretation,  p.  40-44.  Therefore  the  doctrine  of  innate  evil  is 
not  of  importance  for  moral  theology,  but  only  for  moral  discipline  (p.  55). 
On  this  account  Kant’s  theory  of  original  evil  does  not  lead  to  the  doctrine 


§  298.  Doctrines  Concerning  Man;  Sin,  and  Liberty.  4S7 


of  redemption  (in  its  ecclesiastical  sense),  but  he  comes  to  the  conclusion  : 

“  That  which  man,  considered  from  the  moral  point  of  view,  is  or  is  to  be, 
whether  good  or  evil,  depends  on  his  oiun  actions ”  (p.  45).  Comp,  also 
§  298,  on  the  economy  of  redemption.  Herder  therefore  said  :  “  Nobody 
knows  how  this  original  evil  entered  into  the  human  nature,  nor  how  it 
may  escape  from  it.”  (Von  Religion,  Lehrmeinungen  und  Gebrauchen,  pp. 
204,  205.)  For  the  further  development  of  Kant’s  theory,  see  Tief trunk , 
Censur,  iii.  p.  112,  ss.  The  later  rationalists  rested  satisfied  with  regarding  * 
evil  as  something  which  experience  proves  to  exist  among  men,  without 
tracing  its  origin  to  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  ;  nor  did  they  deny  that  those 
who  aspire  after  higher  moral  perfection  may  rise  above  sin.  Wegscheider , 

§  l18- 

6  Schelling ,  Methode  des  akademischen  Studiums,  p.  176.  The  new 
(Christian)  world  commences  with  a  general  fall,  a  breaking  away  of  man  • 
from  nature.  The  surrender  to  nature  itself  does  not  constitute  sin,  for,  as 
long  as  it  is  not  conscious  of  the  opposite,  this  forms  rather  the  golden  age. 
The  consciousness  of  this  surrender  destroys  innocence,  and  therefore  de¬ 
mands  reconciliation  and  voluntary  submission,  in  which  liberty  comes  off 
both  conquered  and  a  conqueror.  This  is  more  fully  developed  by  Blasche , 

1.  c.  p.  224  :  “  Original  sin  did  not  propagate  itself,  because  our  first  parents 
accidentally  sinned,  and  all  other  men  are  their  descendants,  but  because  the 
first  conscious  life  of  man,  and  the  continuance  and  growth  of  this  con¬ 
sciousness,  are  an  original  act  of  sin.  The  propagation  of  sin  does  not  take 
place  so  much  by  physical ,  as  by  psychical  generation,  by  which  we  under¬ 
stand  education,*  on  which  the  development  of  man’s  consciousness,  in  a 
social  point  of  view,  depends.  The  biblical  narrative  of  the  fall  is  an  alle¬ 
gorical  representation  of  the  development  of  this  consciousness  on  the  part 
of  our  first  parents.  Their  condition  antecedent  to  this  event,  the  life  in 
paradise,  the  state  of  innocence,  was  (like  the  state  of  earliest  infancy  in 
general)  an  unconscious  life  of  instinct ;  for  all  mental  development  com¬ 
mences  with  consciousness.  From  this  it  is  evident,  that  as,  in  the  physical 
creation,  it  is  not  good,  but  evil,f  which  is  first,  or  primary,  the  same  must 
be  the  case  in  the  higher  spiritual  creation  (the  culture  of  the  mind),  which 
commences  with  consciousness.  In  the  world  of  spirits  good  must  first  come 
into  existence,  and  is  based  upon  evil.”  (Comp,  the  theory  of  the  Ophites, 
vol.  i.  §  62.) — Hegel  defined  original  sin  as  the  natural  state  ( das  natur- 
liche  Ansichsein )  of  man,  so  far  as  he  is  conscious  of  it.  Philosophic  der 
Religion,  vol.  i.  p.  194,  ss.,  ii.  p.  208,  ss.  Strauss ,  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  69-74, 

6  The  Pietists  and  Methodists  laid  great  stress  upon  the  consciousness  of 
sin  (comp.  §  277,  278).  In  the  Idea  Fidei  Fratrum,  §  50,  ss.,  the  doctrine 
of  the  deep  natural  corruption  of  mankind  is  treated  of  earnestly,  yet  not 
without  suggestion  of  hope,  with  all  the  seriousness  appropriate  to  this  sub* 
ject. — Concerning  Oetinger's  views  of  the  nature  of  evil,  see  Horner ,  Chris* 

*  “  Education  must  necessarily  first  lead  man  astray,  in  his  course  towards  spirituality, 
before  it  can  lead  him  to  virtue.”  (?) 

f  The  word  “  sin”  is  here  used  in  such  a  sense,  that  it  may  be  applied  even  to  physical 
diseases.  Kieser  in  Blasche,  ubi  supra.  But  where  all  is  sin,  sin  loses  its  signifi.cancy 


488 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 

4 


tologie,  pp.  310,  311. —  Swedenborg  departed  from  the  church  doctrine, 
inasmuch  as  he  did  not  believe  in  original  sin,  properly  speaking,  but 
represented  man  as  a  free  agent,  who  is  placed  between  heaven  and  earth, 
and  exposed  to  the  influence  of  good  and  evil  spirits.  But  still  man  derives 
from  God  alTthe  good  which  he  possesses.  Comp,  his  Divine  Revelation,  ii. 
p.  147,  ss. ;  Heaven  and  Hell,  No.  589-596,  and  597-603. — Among  modern 
theologians,  Tholuck  first  save  a  more  orthodox  definition  of  sin  in  his 
wrork  :  Die  Lehre  von  der  Siinde  und  vom  Versohner,  odor  die  wahre 
Weihe  des  Zweiflers.  Hamb.,  1823,  7th  edit.,  1851  [translated  and  publ. 
in  Boston.]  Comp.  Steudel,  Korn ,  and  Klaiber  (see  Bretschneider,  p.  530). 

7  These  modifications  chiefly  consist  in  a  renunciation  of  the  strictly  his¬ 
torical  interpretation  of  the  fall,  which  is  also  abandoned  by  Tholuck  (Die 
Lehre  von  der  Siinde,  etc.  Append.  3*)  and  the  want  of  more  precise  de¬ 
finitions  concerning  the  justitia  originalis.  Respecting  the  latter,  Schleier - 
macher  (Christliche  Glaubenslehre,  i.  p.  336),  gives  it  as  his  opinion,  that 
idea  of  the  justitia  originalis  cannot  be  demonstrated  dialectically.  On  the 
other  hand  he  maintains  (1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  412,  ss.)  the  original  depravity,  and 
entire  inability  of  every  man  to  perform  virtuous  actions ;  this  inability 
ceases  only  in  connection  with  the  work  of  redemption.  De  Wette  asserted 
that  the  representations  of  (orthodox)  Protestant  writers  were  founded  upon 
exaggerated  views,  but  still  defended  them  in  opposition  to  the  superficial 
theories  of  the  rationalists  :  see  Dogmatik,  §  56.  Comp.  Hase,  Dogmatik, 
pp.  102,  103. 

8  Feuerbach ,  Wesen  des  Christenthums,  s.  49  :  “  The  incarnate  God  is  only 
the  manifestation  of  man  become  God — which,  in  fact,  lies  in  the  background 
of  the  religious  consciousness  ;  for  the  elevation  of  man  to  God  necessarily 
precedes  the  condescension  of  God  to  man.  Man  was  already  in  God ,  was 
God  himself, \  before  God  became  man .  How  otherwise  could  God  become 
man.  Ex  nihilo  nil  fit.” 

9  Julius  Muller ,  die  christliche  Lehre  von  der  Siinde,  vol.  i.,  New  edit., 
Berk,  1844,  vol.  ii.  ibid.,  1844.  Comp,  with  it,  G.  Ritter,  fiber  das  Bose, 
etc.,  Theologische  Mitarbeiten,  ii.  part  4),  Breslau,  1839.  Rothe,  Etliik,  ii. 
170,  sq.,  partly  against  Muller.  [Rothe  puts  the  essence  of  sin  more  in  the 
physical  constitution.]  Martensen ,  p.  144,  sq.  Schenkel ,  Gespriiche  iiber 
Protestantismus  und  Katholicismus,  Heidelb.,  1852,  s.  128,  sq.  Tholuck,- 
ubi  supra.  [Muller's  theory  of  preexistence  is  also,  under  other  relations, 
advocated  by  Edward  JBeecher,  Conflict  of  Ages,  Boston,  1853.  See  also 
Prest.  Marsh ,  Three  Discourses  on  Nature,  Ground  and  Origin  of  Sin,  in  his 
Remains  (1845),  pp.  439-502.  Shedd,  Sin  a  Nature,  and  that  Nature  Guilt, 
in  his  Essays  and  Reviews.] 

The  dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  Mary  has  also  been  awak¬ 
ened  from  the  slumber  in  which  it  seemed  to  have  sunk,  and  brought  to  a 
definitive  decision  by  the  Papal  Bull  of  Dec.  8,  1854,  yet  not  without 
weighty  objections  and  opposition  from  Catholic  quarters :  see  the  Brief  of 

*  Beinhard  advocated  the  historical  reality  of  the  fall  bat  thought  the  forbidden 
fruit  venomous,  on  which  account  it  caused  the  death  of  our  first  parents.  (?)  Dogmatik 
(3d  edit.),  p.  213. 


§  299.  Christology. 


489 


Pope  Pi  us  IX.,  Feb.  2,  1849,  and  tbe  answer  of  the  Prussian  bishops  in 
GelzeFs  Protest.  Monatsblatter,  ix.  2,  s.  69,  sq.  The  papal  decision  was  pre¬ 
pared  for,  dogmatically,  in  particular  by  the  works  of  Per  rone,  De  immacul. 
B.  Virg.  Marias  Conceptu,  and  of  Passaglia  (§  178).  Protestant  polemics 
were  also  aroused  against  the  doctrine;  see  Julius  Muller  (§  178),  and 
G.  A.  Wimmer ,  Ehrenrettung  der  seligen  Jungfrau  Maria  gegen  die  papst- 
lichen  Verunglimpfungen,  Bremen,  1855.  [Comp.  Christ.  Remembrancer, 
April,  1852;  Methodist  Quarterly,  April,  1855.  Denzinger ,  Lehre  d.  un- 
befleckten  Empfangniss,  2d  ed.,  1855.  Bp.  Malou  (of  Bruges),  L’immaculee 
Conception. ...  comme  Dogme  de  Foi,  2  Tomes,  Bruxelles,  1857. — Balle- 
rini ,  Sylloge  Monumentorum  ad  Mysterium  Cone,  immacul.  Yirginis,  etc., 
Rom.,  1855.] 


§  299. 

CHRISTOLOGY. 

JDorner ,  uber  die  Entwicklungsgeschichte  der  Christologie,  besonders  in  neuern  Zeiten , 
Tdbinger  Zeitschrift,  1835,  part  4,  p.  81,  ss. ;  Entwicklungsgeschichte  der  Lehre  von 
der  Person  Christi,  p.  250,  ss.  Liebner ,  Christologie,  oder  die  christQl.  Einheit  des 
dogmat.  Systems,  i.  Gott.,  1849.  [  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  3  Bde.  2te. 

AufL,  1859.  W.  F  Gess ,  Die  Lehre  d.  Person  Christi,  1856.  H.  G.  Basse,  Leben 
des  verklarten  Erlosers,  1854.  E.  W.  Gr infield,  The  Christian  Cosmos :  the  Son  of 
God  the  revealed  Creator,  1856.] 

The  more  the  doctrine  of  the  natural  depravity  of  mankind  was 
lost  sight  of,  and  the  nature  of  man  elevated,  the  more  did  specific  dif¬ 
ference  between  Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  the  rest  of  mankind  disap¬ 
pear.  Thus  Socinianism  and  Ebionitism  were  re-introduced  into 
the  Church,  along  with  the  Pelagian  tendencies  of  the  so-called 
period  of  illumination.1  But  there  was  still  a  deep  interest  in  con¬ 
sidering  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  i.  e.,  his  character  as  a  histor¬ 
ical  person,  which  was  represented  sometimes  in  noble,  sometimes 
in  trivial  aspects,  by  different  writers.2  This  led  to  a  new  historical 
estimate  of  his  life,3  which  was  best  adapted  to  prepare  the  way  for 
the  revival  of  a  belief  in  his  higher  nature,  as  surpassing  the  bounds  of 
humanity.  The  views  of  Kant  had  given  rise  to  an  arbitrary  dis¬ 
tinction,  unknown  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  between  an  ideal 
and  a  historical  Christ.4  Only  a  small  number  of  pious  men  (to 
which  belonged  some  of  the  most  eminent  writers  of  the  present 
period)  retained  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity,  with  all  the  ardor 
of  fervent  love,  amidst  a  gainsaying  generation.5  Some,  e.  g ., 
Emmanuel  Swedenborg ,8  even  went  so  far  as  to  adopt  notions  bor¬ 
dering  on  enthusiasm  and  heresy.  The  Christian  rationalists  de¬ 
clared  their  belief  in  the  historical  Christ  (the  man  Jesus),  founded 
upon  the  critical  interpretation  of  the  accounts  given  by  the  evange* 
lists  (especially  in  the  so-called  synoptical  gospels).  They  differed 


490 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


most  distinctly  from  the  anti-Christian  naturalism,  in  admitting 
that  the  founder  of  the  Christian  Church  must  have  been  possessed 
of  the  highest  moral  perfection,  without  directly  asserting  the  dogma 
of  the  absolute  sinlessness  of  Christ.  The  better  class  of  the  ra¬ 
tionalists  did  not  deny  that  Christ  possessed  miraculous  and  myste¬ 
rious  powers  with  the  view  of  detracting  from  his  honor,  but  in 
order  to  render  him  more  accessible  to  men,  to  make  his  doctrine 
more  intelligible,  and  his  example  more  profitable.1 * 3 * * * 7  On  the  other 
hand,  the  adherents  of  the  speculative  philosophy  exerted  them¬ 
selves  to  the  utmost  in  the  defence  of  the  idea  of  an  incarnate  God 
(which  had  been  rejected  by  the  rationalists),  or  of  the  unity  of 
the  divine  with  the  human  ;  and  they  thus  exposed  themselves  to 
the  danger  of  renouncing  the  historical  manifestation  of  Christ,  or 
even  of  converting  his  history  into  mere  myths.8  The  advocates  of 
modern  theology,  since  Schleiermacher ,  consider  it  their  task  to 
show,  that  the  divine  and  the  human  in  Christ  (the  ideal  and  the 
historical),  are  most  intimately  connected  with  each  other.  Though 
they  widely  differ  from  each  other  in  reference  to  particular  points, 
as  well  as  in  the  modes  of  argumentation  which  they  use,9  they 
all  agree  in  admitting  that  the  received  ecclesiastical  terms  of 
person  and  nature  are  not  sufficient  to  express  the  real  relation.10 
It  is  also  now  generally  acknowledged,  that  only  more  profound 
philosophical  and  historical  investigations  can  justify  to  thinking 
minds  the  idea  of  a  God-man,  or  prove,  with  the  highest  degree  of 
historical  evidence,  that  this  idea  is  realised  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.11 

1  Dorner ,  Christologie,  p.  255. 

a  The  phrase,  “  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  a  mere  man,”  can  be  very,  differ¬ 
ently  interpreted  ;  there  are  all  the  grades  between  an  impostor  and  an  en¬ 
thusiast,  between  the  latter  and  an  extraordinary  messenger  of  God,  a  prophet, 
a  worker  of  miracles,  and,  lastly,  the  Son  of  Man,  after  his  resurrection  raised 
to  the  heavens.  All  these  terms  have  been  applied  to  Christ  (in  an  inverse 
order)  from  the  period  of  Socinianism  down  to  the  publication  of  the  “  Wolf-' 
enbtittler  Fragmente,”  and  the  “  Naturliche  Geschichte  des  Propheten  von 
Nazareth,”  Bethlehem  [Kopenhagen],  1800.  • 

3  Bringing  the  person  of  Christ  into  the  sphere  of  history,  and  the  en¬ 

deavor  to  understand  him  like  every  other  man  in  historical  relations,  could 

only  in  the  end  be  subservient  to  the  advancement  of  truth  (hence  the  Life 

of  Jesus  is  now  so  often  described)  ;  for  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  the 

true  humanity  of  the  Redeemer  must  lose  its  significance  without  what  may 

be  called  the  human  treatment  of  his  history.  In  this  respect  Herder  has 

distinguished  himself  above  all  other  writers.  Comp,  his  “  Christliche  Schrif- 
ten,”  and  the  passages  quoted  in  his  “  Dogmatik,”  p.  134,  ss.,  190,  ss.,  212, 

ss.  And  yet,  while  emphasizing  what  Christ  has  in  common  with  the  race^ 

he  has  overlooked  what  raises  him,  as  the  Holy  One,  above  the  race. 


§  299.  Christology. 


491 


In  connection  with  his  doctrine  of  original  evil,  Kant  maintained  the 
necessity  of  a  restoration  of  man  by  means  of  his  freedom.  To  attain  unto 
this  end,  man  stands  in  need  of  an  ideal — viz.,  a  human  ideal  which  is  pre¬ 
sented  to  him  in  the  scriptural  doctrine  concerning  Christ  (the  personified 
idea  of  the  good  principle).  The  idea  has  its  seat  in  our  reason  ;  for  the 
practical  purposes  of  an  example,  etc.,  a  character  is  sufficient  which  resem¬ 
bles  the  idea  as  much  as  possible.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  a  superna¬ 
tural  generation,  though  it  cannot  be  absolutely  denied  that  such  may  take 
place;  see  Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen  der  blossen  Vernunft,  p.  67,  ss., 
and  comp.  p.  183,  and  Dorner ,  1.  c.  p.  258,  ss.  “  The  incongruence  between 
the  historical  and  the  ideal  Christ  is  here  indeed  only  hinted  at  in  the  most 
forbearing  manner  ;  but  in  point  of  fact  this  want  of  correspondence  between 
the  manifestation  and  the  idea  is  a  fundamental  point  in  the  Kantian  phil¬ 
osophy  Strauss ,  ii.  292. 

5  Zinzendorf  and  the  Society  of  the  United  Brethren.  Spangenberg 
Idea  Fidei  Fratr.  §  63-84.  JBengel ,  comp.  Buric,  p.  353,  ss.,  p.  541.  [Comp. 
Von  der  Goltz ,  Die  theologische  Bedentung  Bengels  und  seiner  Schule,  in 
Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theologie,  1861,  pp.  460-507.]  Oetinger  (comp.  Dorner, 
1.  c.  p.  305,  ss.)  Haller ,  Gellert,  J.  C.  Lavater ,  Hamann  ( Dorner ,  p.  305), 
Stilling ,  Claudius ,  KlopstocJc ,  Kovalis  (. Dorner ,  p.  323,  ss.)  Respecting 
Lavater,  see  the  biographies  by  Herbst ,  Gessner ,  and  others  :  Hegner  (Bei- 
trage,  Lpz.,  1836),  p.  260,  ss.  “My  grey  hair  shall  not  descend  into  the 
grave,  until  I  have  addressed  these  words  to  some  of  the  elect :  He  is  more 
certain  than  I  ails'1  (Handbibel,  1791).  “  The  divinity  of  Christ ,  this  su- 

vreme  power  in  heaven  and  on  earth ,  was  in  all  its  aspects  the  only  theme 
ivhich  he  everywhere  announced ,  taught  in  his  writings ,  and  treated  at 
length  Hegner ,  p.  267.  Comp,  on  the  other  hand,  the  remarkable  letters 
of  Gothe  addressed  to  Lavater  in  the  year  1781,  pp.  140,  141. 

8  The  christology  of  Swedenborg  bears  close  resemblance  to  that  of 
Swenckfeld.  Jesus  is  born  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  Mary.  Inasmuch  as 
his  divinity  is  the  divinity  of  the  Father,  his  body  was  also  divine.  That 
which  was  human  was  made  divine  by  sufferings  and  temptations.  The 
human  which  he  received  from  Mary  was  gradually  laid  aside,  and  the  heav¬ 
enly  divine  body  substituted  for  it.  It  is  the  divine  body  which  he  took 
with  him  to  heaven.  (Comp,  his  views  concerning  the  Trinity,  §  292  ; 
Dorner,  p.  208,  note.) — On  Oetinger's  Christology,  see  “  Theologie  aus  der 
Idee  des  Lebens,”  p.  245,  sq.  ;  Auberlen ,  pp.  152,  163,  231,  239,  sq .,  and 
other  passages. 

7  Rohr ,  Briefe  fiber  den  Rationalismus,  xi.,  and  Christologische  Predigten, 
Weimar,  1831.  Wegscheider ,  Institutiones,  §  123, 128.  Paulus ,  das  Leben 
Jesu. — Dorner ,  1.  c.  pp.  278,  279.  (Rationalists  speak  only  of  a  doctrina 
Christi,  but  not  of  a  doctrina  de  Christo.) — On  the  controversy  respecting 
the  adoration  of  Christ,  which  was  carried  on  in  Magdeburg  in  the  year 
1840,  see  Hase ,  Church  History,  New  York  ed.,  p.  565. 

8  On  the  origin  of  these  speculative  views  of  Christ’s  nature  as  traced  to 
the  works  of  Spinoza,  see  Strauss ,  ii.  p.  199. — Fichte  (Anweisung  zum  seli- 
gen  Leben,  p.  166,  ss,)  makes  a  distinction  between  the  absolute  and  the 
empirical  point  of  view.  From  the  absolute  point  of  view  the  eternal  word 


492 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


becomes,  at  all  times,  and  in  every  one,  flesh,  in  the  same  manner  in  which 
it  became  flesh  in  Christ,  and  manifests  itself  to  every  man  who  has  a  clear 
view  of  his  unity  with  God.  Fichte,  indeed,  admits  that  the  knowledge  of  the 
absolute  unity  of  the  human  existence  with  the  divine  (the  profoundest 
knowledge  to  which  man  can  attain),  had  not  existed  previous  to  the  time 
of  Christ;  but  he  also  imagines  that  the  philosopher  may  not  only  discover 
these  truths  independently  of  Christianity,  but  also  take  a  more  comprehen¬ 
sive  and  clearer  view  of  them,  than  has  been  transmitted  by  Christianity. 
On  the  one  hand  he  professes  to  believe  (p.  172)  that  all  truly  rational  men 
will,  to  the  end  of  time,  render  profound  homage  to  this  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
and  acknowledge  the  incomparable  excellency  of  this  highly  exalted  person 
with  the  greater  humility  the  more  they  know  themselves;  though  he  also 
thinks  (p.  172)  that  if  Jesus  were  to  return  to  our  world,  he  would  rest  satis¬ 
fied  at  finding  Christianity  established  in  the  minds  of  men,  without  claiming 
adoration  for  himself.  But  on  the  other  hand  (p.  173),  he  maintains  that 
it  is  the  metaphysical  alone,  and  not  the  historical ,  which  will  save  a  man 
(the  latter  only  makes  the  thing  intelligible).  “  If  any  one  be  truly  united 
with  God,  it  is  altogether  indifferent  in  what  manner  he  has  attained  unto  this 
state,  and  it  would  be  a  most  useless  and  perverse  occupation  to  waste  much 
time  in  the  recollection  of  the  manner,  instead  of  enjoying  that  union  itself.” 
— Schelling ,  Methode  des  akademischen  Studiums,  p.  175  :  “  The  highest  sense 
for  religion  which  expressed  itself  in  Christian  mysticism,  regarded  the  mys¬ 
tery  of  nature,  and  that  of  the  incarnation  of  God ,  as  identical.”  Ibid.,  p. 
192  :  “Theologians  interpret  the  incarnation  of  God  in  Christ  empirically, 
as  if  God  assumed  the  nature  of  man  at  a  certain  moment  of  time.  But  it 
is  impossible  to  attach  any  meaning  to  this  idea,  since  God  is  eternally  aloof 
from  all  time.  Hence  the  incarnation  of  God  is  an  incarnation  from  eternity. 
The  man  Christ  forms  in  his  historical  appearance  only  the  crown,  and  there¬ 
fore  also  the  beginning  of  that  incarnation  ;  for  beginning  with  him,  it  was 
so  to  be  continued  that  all  his  followers  should  be  members  of  one  and  the 
same  body  of  which  he  is  the  head.  History  testifies  that  God  truly  mani¬ 
fested  himself  first  in  Christ :  for  who  that  preceded  him  revealed  the  infi¬ 
nite  in  such  a  manner?”  On  the  other  hand,  comp.  pp.  194,  195,  where  he 
maintains  that  the  numerous  incarnations  in  which  the  East  Indians  believe, 
are  more  rational  than  the  single  incarnation  of  God  taught  by  Christian 
missionaries;  and  p.  206  :  “Whether  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament 
are  genuine  or  not,  whether  the  narratives  contained  in  them  are  real  and 
unadulterated  facts,  and  whether  their  contents  are  in  accordance  with  the 
idea  of  Christianity,  or  not,  cannot  affect  the  reality  of  that  idea,  inasmuch 
as  it  does  not  depend  on  this  single  phenomenon ,  but  is  universal  and  abso¬ 
lute.”  For  further  particulars,  comp.  Dorner ,  p.  339  ss. — Blasche  (Ueber 
das  Bose,  p.  300)  regards  the  matter  rather  from  the  historical  point  of  view  : 

. . . Christ  is  the  representative  of  the  acme  to  which  the  world-historical 
work  of  redemption  had  attained.  The  incarnation  of  God  was  completed  in 
him.  He  has  therefore  the  significance  of  a  personal  moral  creator  of  the 
world ”  (p.  301).  “He  was  the  highest  product  of  the  universal  moral 
creation  in  the  history  of  the  world ;  this  higher  creation  became  personal 
particularly  in  him”  (p.  303). — Concerning  the  christological  views  of  Hegel 


§  299.  Christology. 


493 


(Religions  Philosophie,  vol.  ii.,  p.  204  ss.,  especially  p.  233-256),  see  Dor- 
ner ,  1.  c.,  p.  397  ss.,  and  his  remarks  respecting  them,  p.  406  ss.  According 
to  Dorner  it  is  difficult  to  decide  whether  the  historical  Christ  (in  the  system 
of  Hegel)  possesses  any  specific  dignity,*  or  whether  Hegel  does  not  believe 
in  the  unity  of  the  divine  with  the  human  in  the  person  of  Christ,  merely  as 
a  means  of  comprehending  it  in  himself?  (Dorner,  p.  414.)  The  adherents 
of  the  two  schools  of  Hegel  differ  in  their  views  concerning  the  nature  of 
Christ.  Some  (as  Marheineke ,  Rosenkranz ,  and  Conradi ,  see  Dorner ,  p.  366 
ss.)  endeavor  to  unite  the  historical  Christ  with  the  ideal.  Others  do  not 
consider  him  as  a  purely  mythical  person,  but  as  the  accidental  representa¬ 
tive  of  a  certain  idea ;  this  idea  gave  rise  to  the  development  of  a  body  of 
myths,  which  were  thrown  around  the  name  and  person  of  Jesus.  Thus 
Strauss ,  in  his  Leben  Jesu,  and  in  his  Dogmatik,  ii.,  p.  209  ss.f 

9  De  Wette  (comp.  Dorner ,  p.  281  ss.,  who  classes  him  with  Fichte  and 
Jacobi,  but  he  ought  rather  to  be  compared  with  Herder ),  is  not  to  be  con¬ 
founded  with  those  who,  rejecting  the  historical,  attach  importance  only  to 
the  idea.  On  the  contrary,  he  regards  the  historical  Christ  as  the  realized 
idea ;  although  it  must  be  confessed,  his  eye  is  rather  turned  toward  the 
aspiring,  subjective  heart,  seeking  what  may  satisfy  its  wants-,  than  to  the  in¬ 
vestigating  and  argumentative  intellect.  He  combats  the  my thico-speculative 
theory  in  decided  terms;  Religion  und  Theologie,  p.  184.  He  was  also  the 
first  who  again  treated  Christian  ethics  (which  orthodox  theologians  had 
been  accustomed  to  discuss  in  the  most  abstract  manner),  on  the  foundation 
of  the  person  of  Christ;  comp,  his  Lehrbuch  der  christlichen  Sittenlebre, 
§  41  ss.,  §  53.  See  also  his  Yorlesungen  iiber  die  Religion,  Vorlesung  18  : 
“  All  the  rays  of  truth  which  came  forth  among  men,  are  united  in  Christ, 
the  light  of  the  world.  All  the  knowledge  of  the  true  and  the  good  previous 
to  his  time  is  only  a  presentiment  of  that  which  he  has  revealed.”  Ibid.,  p. 
444  :  “The  personal  character ,  life  and  d%ath  of  Christ,  and  belief  in  him,  form 
the  centre  of  Christianity.  The  spirit  of  religion  became  personal  in  him, 
and,  proceeding  from  him,  exerted  an  influence  upon  the  world  which  stood 
in  need  of  a  new  religious  life  in  order  to  regenerate  it.”  Comp,  his  Kirchliche 
Dogmatik,  §  63;  Religion  und  Theologie,  p.  115  ss. ;  Vorwurt  zum  Com- 
inentar  des  Mattkaeus  (1  edit.,  p.  vii.) ;  and  the  last  chapter  of  his  historical 
review  of  the  narratives  of  the  gospels  (on  John)  ;  the  two  latter  are  written 
* 

*  Hegel  rejected  the  rationalistic  theory,  p.  240  :  “  If  we  regard  Christ  in  the  same 
light  as  Socrates,  we  regard  him  as  a  mere  man,  like  the  Mohammedans,  who  consider 
Christ  to  have  been  a  messenger  of  God,  in  that  more  comprehensive  sense  in  which  all 
great  men  may  be  called  ambassadors  or  messengers  of  God.  If  we  merely  say  that 
Christ  was  a  teacher  of  mankind,  and  a  martyr  for  truth,  we  express  ourselves  neither 
from  the  Christian  point  of  view,  nor  from  that  of  true  religion.”* — But  compare  what 
follows. 

|  However  much  Jacobi  differed  from  the  speculative  philosophers  on  theological  points, 
he  was  equally  indifferent  as  to  the  historical  person  of  the  Redeemer,  and  rested  satis¬ 
fied  with  subjective  religious  feelings,  while  they  contented  themselves  with  tho  specula¬ 
tive  idea.  See  the  words  addressed  to  Claudius,  in  the  introduction  to  this  treatise:  Yon 
den  gottlichen  Dingen  (reprinted  in  Strauss ,  Dogmatik,  ii.,  p.  203).  In  this  Herder  forms 
a  partial  contrast  with  Jacobi ,  or  rather  a  complement  to  him  (as  Jacobi  writes  to  Clau¬ 
dius,  so  does  Golhe  to  Lavater,  only  in  stronger  terms ;  see  note  5.) 


494 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


in  opposition  to  Strauss. — Schleiermacher  has  treated  this  doctrine  in  a  more 
dialectic  manner,  and  thus  “  exerted  more  influence  than  any  other  modern 
theologian  upon  his  contemporaries  ( Dorner ,  p.  488  ss).  But  at  the 
same  time,  he  has  given  rise  to  new  doubts  (Strauss,  Dogmatik,  ii.,  p.  180 
ss.)  Compare  his  \Veih  nachtsfeier ;  der  Christliche  Glaube,  ii.  §  92-105  ; 
Reden  tiber  die  Religion,  1829;  Sendschreiben  an  Lticke  (Studien  und 
Ivritiken,  1829,  parts  2  and  3);  several  of  his  sermons;  and  the  representa¬ 
tions  of  his  system  given  by  Dorner  and  Strauss,  1.  c.  Schleiermacher  (like 
De  Wette)  differs  from  the  adherents  of  the  speculative  school  in  rejecting 
the  notion  of  an  ideal  Christ  apart  from  the  historical  Christ.  The  historical 
and  the  ideal  (he  substituted  these  terms  for  those  of  human  and  divine 
nature),  are,  in  his  opinion,  united  in  Christ.  The  ideal  does  not  consist  in 
skill  and  dexterity  in  particular  departments  of  life,  but  in  the  purity  and 
vigor  of  the  innate  consciousness  of  God.  Schleiermacher  rests  faith  in  the 
divine  authority  of  Christ  on  the  idea  of  his  sinlessness,  and  in  connection 
with  it,  on  the  impossibility  of  his  having  erred.  The  church,  as  well  as  every 
believer,  possesses  the  consciousness  of  this  (an  inference  from  the  effect  to 
to  the  cause).  Christ  came  into  existence — (viz.  in  his  human  nature)  with¬ 
out  sin.  This  generation  does  not  necessarily  exclude  the  idea  of  parti¬ 
cipation  on  the  part  of  man,  but  is  still  to  be  regarded  as  a  supernatural 
event,  which  does  not  stand  in  connection  with  what  is  sinful,  but  is 
a  new  creation.  In  opposition  to  Strauss ,  who  asserts  that  the  divine 
love  could  not  have  been  wholly  expended  upon  one  individual,  Ull~ 
mann ,  Schweizer ,  and  others  have  carried  the  question  back  to  the  religious 
point  of  view,  from  which  alone  Schleiermacher  proceeded.  Others  have 
endeavored,  on  speculative  grounds,  to  determine  the  relation  of  the  individ¬ 
ual  to  the  genus,  and  thus  revived  the  old  scholastic  controversy  (concerning 
Nominalism  and  Realism). — Hase  agrees  with  Schleiermacher  in  maintaining 
(in  opposition  to  the  orthodox  ecclesiastical,  as  well  as  the  historical  theory), 
that  the  divinity  in  Christ  consisted  in  his  blameless  piety  (Dogmatik,  pp. 
286,  287),  and  connects  with  this  the  idea,  that  after  the  example  of  Christ, 
every  son  of  man,  as  far  as  is  possible  for  him,  ought  to  develope  himself  as 
a  son  of  God,  and  every  man  to  a  God-man.  Comp.  Dorner ,  pp.  289  ss. 

10  The  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  church  has  again  found  defenders  in  mod¬ 
ern  times  with  various  modifications  ;  see  Steffens ,  von  der  falschen  Theolo- 
gie,  p.  127.  Sartorius ,  die  Lehre  von  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  Ilamb., 
1831,  ’34,  [transl.  by  Stearns ,  Boston]. — Schleiermacher  limited  the  specific 

difference  between  Christ  and  other  men  to  his  sinlessness — an  idea  brought 
••  •*  ••  ,  ^ 
out  in  its  sharpest  light  by  Ullmann,  in  his  Siindlosigkeit  Jesu,  Hamb.,  5te. 

Aufl.,  1846  [transl.  by  Prof  E.  A.  Park  in  German  Selections,  Andov.,  1830, 
pp.  388-452].  In  contrast  with  this  preponderance  of  the  anthropological 
method  of  constructing  the  person  of  Christ,  the  metaphysical  and  theologi¬ 
cal  method  has  been  revived  and  enforced,  in  the  interest  of  the  orthodox 
doctrine  of  the  church.  Besides  Dorner' s  Christology,  see  in  particular  Lieb- 
ncr's  Christology,  1849,  p.  12  sq.  [Liebner’s  view  is  that  of  the  necessity 
of  the  incarnation — presupposing  creation  as  a  free  act — as  the  essential 
basis  of  Christianity,  and  the  clue  to  all  its  mysteries.]  See  also  Ebrard , 
Die  Gottmenschlichkeit  des  Christenthums,  Zurich,  1844  ;  and  his  Dogma- 


§  299.  Christology. 


495 


lil<;  ii.  1  sq.  Lange ,  Dogmatik,  ii.  109  sq. :  “  The  idea  of  the  God-man  is 
the  concentration  of  all  knowledge  of  the  divine  in  the  human ,  and  of  the 
human  in  the  divine ,  consequently  the  source  of  a  truly  divine,  human  life — 
hence  it  is  the  really  f  undamental  idea  of  life?  See  also  Rotlie,  Ethik,  ii.,  p. 
2*79  sq.  [When  the  necessary  historical  conditions  were  fulfilled,  God,  re¬ 
adopting  as  it  were  the  fallen  creation,  by  a  creative  act  brought  the  second 
Adam  into  union  with  the  old,  natural  humanity — in  a  supernatural  way — 
not  bv  the  forces  contained  in  the  race,  but  an  immediate  and  absolute  crea- 
tive  energy.]  According  to  Martcnsen ,  p.  221  ;  “the  Son  has  his  life,  not 
merely  in  the  Father,  but  also  in  the  world.”  “  As  the  heart  of  the  Father, 
he  is  also  the  heart  of  the  world  hence  the  significance  of  his  pre-existence, 
W.  F.  Gess ,  in  his  Lehre  der  Person  Christi,  Basel,  1856  (partly  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  Liebner,  Thomasius  and  Dorner),  has  made  a  new  attempt  to  devel- 
ope  the  Christology  “  from  the  self-consciousness  of  Christ,  and  the  testimony 
of  the  apostles.” — On  the  Christology  of  Thomasius  (Christi  Person  und 
Werk),  see  the  Zeitsclirift  of  Kliefoth  and  Mejer,  iv.  [See  on  the  general 
subject,  Liebner,  Christologisch.es — a  review  of  recent  speculations,  in  Jahrb. 
f.  deutsche  Theologie,  1858.  W.  JBeyschlag,  Die  Paulinische  Christologie, 
in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1860  (against  the  Kenosis).  J.  Bodemeyer , 
Die  Lehre  von  der  Kenosis,  Getting.,  1860  :  comp,  his  criticism  of  Richter’s 
representation  of  the  Lutheran  Doctrine,  in  the  Deutsche  Zeitsclirift,  1861, 
p.  60  sq.  Dorner' s  articles  on  the  Unveranderlichkeit  Gottes  (proposing  a 
revision  of  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  immutability,  in  its  relations  to  Christ- 
ology),  bear  upon  the  same  speculations;  see  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theologie, 
1856.  Weizsacker,  Das  Selbstzengniss  des  johanneischen  Christ  us,  in  the 
same  journal,  1857. — R.  W.  Wilberforce,  Doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  in 
Relation  to  Mankind  and  the  Church,  1850.] 

11  “  In  point  of  fact,  we  cannot  look  for  a  restitutio  in  integrum  of  any 
une  of  the  earlier  centuries  of  the  church  development,  not  even  of  the  six¬ 
teenth  century  ;  but  a  higher  prospect  is  held  out  to  us.  Nor  can  any  new, 
merely  sharpened  onesidedness  (or  even  several  such  points)  be  the  end  [of 
these  christological  inquiries],  but  rather  a  higher  unity,  after  the  large  ex¬ 
perience  we  have  had  in  philosophy  and  theology :”  Liebner,  in  the  Preface 
to  his  Christology,  p.  10. — “Our  time  has  correctly  declared  the  idea  of  the 
divine  humanity  to  be  the  key  to  Protestant  theology :  its  essential  task 
must  be,  to  grasp  the  two  antagonisms  of  the  divine  and  human  in  Christ  as 
abolished  and  reconciled  ;  and  to  find  the  root  of  its  theology  in  the  unity  of 
the  divine  and  human  natures,  as  personally  realized  in  Christ.  That  is,  it  is 
its  office  to  grasp  the  historical  Christ  as  being  equally  the  real  ideal  Christ, 
and  the  ideal  as  also  historical :”  Schenkel ,  Wesen  des  Protestantismus,  i.  357, 
sq.  [“The  key  to  the  whole  christology,  as  Strauss  says,  is  this — that  an 
idea  is  made  the  subject  of  the  predicates,  which  the  church  has  ascribed  to 
Christ;  not  a  Kantian,  unreal  idea,  but  a  real  idea — hummity  as  the  God- 
man.”  “  Christ  is  God  and  man,  as  every  man  is  in  idea  :  what  has  been 
ascribed  to  him  specifically  and  specially  has  been  (by  the  Hegelian  philos¬ 
ophy)  resolved  into  the  general  essence  of  humanity.”  Rauf,  Dogmenges- 
chichte,  pp.  380-4.] 


496 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Menken  (Tlomilien  uber  das  9  und  10.  Capitel  des  Briefs  a  l  die  Hebraer,  Bremen, 
1831),  and  Irving  (the  Human  Nature  of  Christ)  revived  the  controversy,  whether  Christ 
assumed  the  human  nature  as  it  existed  prior ,  or  as  it  existed  posterior  to  the  fall  ? 
Menken  and  Irving  maintained  the  latter.  Irving  was,  on  account  of  this  assertion,  ex¬ 
cluded  from  the  Scotch  National  Church.  The  subject  in  question  also  gave  rise  to  dis¬ 
cussions  among  the  theologians  belonging  to  the  evangelical  school  of  Geneva.  See  Dor - 
ner ,  Appendix,  p.  530  ss.  ;  Baur ,  Versohnungslehre,  p.  684;  and  Preiswerk,  Lettre 
addressee  a  MM.  les  membres  du  Comite  de  la  Societe  evangelique  de  Geneve,  1837  (Ger¬ 
man  and  French) ;  Evangelisclie  Kirchenzeitung,  xxi.  p.  433  ss.  [On  Menken,  see  Leben 
u.  Wirken,  von  Dr.  0.  II  Gildemeister,  2  Thle.,  1860,  and  comp.  J.  Muller's  review  in 
Deutsche  Zeitschrift,  Jan.,  1861,  p.  24  sq.  A  new  ed.  of  Menken’s  works,  1858-9  ;  he 
was  bom  at  Bremen,  May  29,  1768,  died  June,  1,  1831.] 

The  old  scholastic  inquiry,  how  far  the  incarnation  was  conditioned  by  the  sin  of  Adam 
(see  above,  §  182,  Note  2)  has  also  been  revived  by  the  modern  theology  and  investigated 
anew.  See  Julius  Muller ,  (against  Dorner ),  whether  the  Son  of  God  would  have  become 
man,  if  the  human  race  had  remained  sinless,  in  the  Deutsche  Zeitschrift  f.  Christl.  Wis- 
senschaft,  1850,  No.  40-42  [also  1853.  Comp.  Florke,  Die  Menschwerdung  Gottes  ab- 
gesehen  von  der  Siinde,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  lutherische  Theologie,  1854. — In  England 
Trench  has  advocated  the  view  of  an  incarnation  even  without  the  fall.  See  The  Theory 
of  an  Incarnation  without  a  Fall,  in  the  British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review,  Jan., 
1861.] 


§  300. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

Baur,  Lehre  von  der  Versohnung,  p.  478  ss. 

As  the  Pietists  had,  during  the  preceding  period,  lowered  the 
juridical  idea  of  satisfaction,  so  the  doctrine  of  atonement  was  re¬ 
presented  by  Zinzendorf  in  its  internal  connection  with  the  Christian 
life,  as  the  essence  of  Christianity.  At  the  same  time  he  gave  it  a 
more  sensuous  aspect  than  it  had,  either  in  the  theory  of  Anselm,  or 
in  the  theological  system  of  the  old  Lutherans,  but  which  was  im¬ 
plied  in  the  phraseology  of  the  mystics.1  On  the  other  hand,  Con¬ 
rad  Dippel  and  Swedenborg  rejected,  on  the  basis  of  a  free,  critical 
mysticism,  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  satisfaction  altogether.2  It 
was  also  attacked  by  the  rationalist.  After  Tollner  had  called  forth 
a  spirit  of  inquiry  in  other  directions,  and  also  by  combating  the 
received  doctrine  of  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  (in  opposition  to 
Ch.  W.  F.  Walcli ),3  the  entire  host  of  those  who  advocated  the  so- 
called  enlightenment  of  the  age,  opposed  the  church  doctrine  as 
unprofitable  and  dangerous  to  true  morality.4  Other  theologians 
undertook  its  defence,  some  holding  more,  others  less  rigid  opinions 
concerning  it.  Here  too,  Kant  introduced  a  new  series  of  discuss¬ 
ions,  by  pointing  out,  in  connection  with  his  doctrine  concerning 
original  evil,  the  necessity  of  a  restoration  of  the  human  nature  ; 
hut  he  assigned  only  a  symbolical  and  moral  significance  to  the  death 
of  Christ.6  The  rationalists  proper  treated  the  subject  from  a  more 


§  300.  The  Doctrine  of  Atonement. 


497 


negative  point  of  view  than  Kant,  losing  sight  of  the  symbolical 
in  the'  merely  moral.7  On  the  other  hand,  De  Wette  brought  the 
symbolical  more  prominently  forward  in  peculiar  aspects.8  Sclilei- 
ermacher  connected  the  doctrine  of  the  vicarious  sufferings  and  per¬ 
fect  obedience  of  Christ,  with  his  sinlessness  and  the  doctrine  of  his 
priestly  office,  hut  separated  between  the  substitution  and  the  satis¬ 
faction,  so  as  to  represent  Christ's  sufferings  alone  as  vicarious,  hut 
not  as  making  satisfaction,  and  his  obedience  as  making  satisfaction, 
but  not  as  vicarious.9  The  adherents  of  the  speculative  school  re¬ 
garded  the  death  of  the  God-man  as  the  abolition  of  his  existence  in 
a  different  mode  of  being  from  his  primitive  state  [ das  Auflieben 
des  Andersseins ],  and  the  necessary  return  of  the  life  of  God,  that 
had  assumed  a  finite  form,  into  the  sphere  of  the  infinite.10  Some 
of  the  strict  supernaturalists,  Hasenkamp ,  Menken ,  Stier ,  also  found 
fault  with  the  theory  of  Anselm,  and  endeavoured  to  substitute  for 
it  another  scheme,  which  they  thought  more  in  accordance  with  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture.11  But  other  theologians  espoused  the  cause 
of  Anselm,  and,  so  far  from  rejecting  his  doctrine  as  useless,  sought 
to  develope  it  more  fully  in  the  same  spirit.12 

1  Comp.  278.  In  opposition  to  Zinzendorf,  Bengel,  nbi  supra,  p.  81  ss.,  p. 
89,  expressed  himself  as  follows  .’/‘The  United  Brethren  attach  almost  exclu¬ 
sive  importance  to  imagination,  and  care  little  about  the  understanding.”  P. 
90  :  “Therefore  they  do  not  cease  to  talk  of  blood,  wounds,  the  prints  of  the 
nails,  the  holes  in  his  side,  the  smell  of  his  corpse,  etc.,  and  frequently  use  the 
word  lamb  in  an  indiscreet  manner.  .Such  images  of  scourges,  the  cross,  etc., 
are  calculated  to  produce  an  impression  upon  the  natural  senses  and  affec¬ 
tions,  especially  in  the  case  of  the  illiterate,  but  they  constitute  neither  the 
whole  thing,  nor  its  principal  part.”  P.  123  :  “  He  who  knows  the  nature 
of  the  human  mind,  cannot  approve  of  those  who,  in  their  thoughts  and  dis¬ 
courses,  select  one  single  article  from  among  the  whole  treasure  of  wholesome 
doctrine,  upon  which  they  constantly  dwell,  and  expect  others  to  do  the  same. 
This  leads  to  vain  and  insipid  talk.  By  means  of  arbitrary,  forced,  and  ex¬ 
aggerated  meditations  about  the  blood  of  Christ,  they  would  fain  bring  us 
back  to  mere  nature.”  P.  124  :  “If  any  one  had  a  watch  and  should  take 
away  from  it,  piece  by  piece,  the  parts  which  he  thinks  may  be  dispensed 
with,  because  they  do  not  point  out  the  hour,  the  hand  itself  would  soon  be¬ 
come  of  no  use  to  him.  He  that  takes  away  all  the  parts  of  any  thing 
destroys  the  whole.  To  take  in  pieces  is  to  destroy.”  P.  126  :  “  Many 
make  of  the  blood  of  Christ  an  opium,  by  which  they  bring  themselves  and 
others  into  doubt  as  to  what  is  right  and  wrong.”  [Comp.  Yon  der  Goltz, 
Bengel’s  Theologische  Bedentung  in  Jalirb.  f.  deutsche  Theol.,  1861.  j 

2  Dippel  agreed  with  the  mystics  in  regarding  the  internal  life  of  Christ 
as  containing  the  redeeming  principle,  in  opposition  to  those  who  laid  prin¬ 
cipal  stress  upon  his  external  sufferings.  In  his  view,  the  death  of  Christ  is 
a  type  of  that  death  which  the  old  man  must  suffer  in  us.  Christ  did  not 
deliver  us  from  chastisements,  but  taught  us  how  to  bear  them,  that  they 


498 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


may  serve  to  turn  our  minds  from  earthly  things.  Comp.  Watch,  Einleitung 
Religionsstreitigkeiten,  ii.  p.  718  ss.,  v.  p.  998  ss.  Baur ,  1.  c.,  p  473  ss. 
Concerning  the  relation  in  which  this  doctrine  stands  to  that  of  the  Socinians, 
see  also  Baur ,  1.  c. — According  to  Stvedenborg ,  Christ’s  sufferings  on  the 
cross  were  the  last  temptation  which  he  had  to  resist,  in  order  to  obtain  the 
victory  over  the  kingdom  of  Satan  (i.  e.  hell)  ;  his  human  nature  was,  at  the 
same  time  glorified  by  these  sufferings,  i.  e.  united  with  the  divine  nature  of 
the  Father.  See  Divine  Revelation,  i.  p.  36  ss.,  and  other  passages. 

3  Comp.  Ch.  G.  F.  Watch ,  De  Obedientia  Christi  activa  Commcntatio, 
Gott.,  1755.  J.  G.  Tollner ,  Der  thatige  Gehorsam  Jesu  Christi,  Bresl., 
1768  :  this  treatise  is  to  be  compared  with  his  Vermischte  Aufsatze,  ii.  2,  p. 
273,  in  which  he  defends  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  Christ’s  passive  obedience, 
and  its  practical  utility,  in  opposition  to  Taylor  and  the  Socinians.  Comp. 
Baur ,  p.  478  ss.  Ernesti ,  in  the  Neue  Theologisclie  Bibliothek,  vol.  ix.,  p. 
914  ss.  (this  is  rather  about,  than  against  Tollner).  He  also  thinks  that 
the  distinction  between  obedientia  activa  et  passiva,  which  is  only  calculated 
to  produce  confusion,  ought  long  ago  to  have  been  given  up  ;  but  “ people  do 
not  like  to  tune  an  instrument  in  a  different  key,  lest  the  strings  should  break .” 
He  therefore  undertakes  to  defend,  at  the  sacrifice  of  philosophical  exacti¬ 
tude,  the  assailed  doctrine  (p.  492).  For  further  particulars,  and  the  works 
in  reply,  see  Baur ,  p.  504. 

4  Steinbart ,  Eberliard ,  Bahrdt,  Henke ,  Loffler ,  and  others;  see  Baur ,  p. 
505-530. 

5  Among  the  advocates  of  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  redemption  (but  not 
of  the  theory  of  Anselm),  Herder  takes  the  most  prominent  place  as  regards 
truly  spiritual  views.  (See  his  Erlauterungen  zum  Neuen  Testament,  p.  51- 
56,  and  his  Von  Religion,  Lehrmeinungen  und  Gebrauchen,  Abhandlung  7  : 
comp,  also  his  Dogmatik,  p.  212  ss.).  Herder  endeavored  especially  to 
maintain  the  religious  aspect  of  this  doctrine  instead  of  the  juridical ;  on  the 
contrary,  several  modern  advocates  of  the  latter  theory  ( e .  g.  Michaelis, 
Stoi'r ,  and  partly  also  Seiler ),  adhered  to  the  idea  of  Grotius,  that  the  design 
of  Christ’s  death  was  to  set  before  us  an  example  of  punishment  (comp. 
§  268,  note  9),  with  which  however  they  connected  some  other  representa¬ 
tions.  Thus  Storr  supposed  that  the  death  of  Christ  exerted  a  reacting  in¬ 
fluence  upon  himself,  by  elevating  him  to  a  higher  state  of  moral  perfection  : 
Yon  dem  Zweck  des  Todes  Jesu,  p.  664,  quoted  by  Baur,  p.  544  ss. — Do- 
derlein,  Morus ,  Knapp,  Schwarz  and  Fein  hard,*  regarded  the  death  of 

*  All  the  various  objects  of  Christ’s  death  are  surveyed  in  their  connection  by  Reinhard 
with  logical  precision,  §  101.  He  admits  that  this  doctrine  has  been  corrupted  by  numer¬ 
ous  false  additions,  by  which  thinking  men  might  be  induced  to  regard  it  with  sus¬ 
picion;  hence  he  does  not  approve  of  the  opinion,  that  the  wrath  of  God  against 
sinful  men  rendered  such  a  sacrifice  necessary,  and  was,  as  it  were,  only  appeased  by  the 
blood  of  Christ.  He  also  rejects  other  ideas  connected  with  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine 
and  essential  to  its  integrity.  And  at  last  he  contents  himself  with  the  view,  that  the 
death  of  Christ  was  a  solemn  declaration  that  God  will  be  merciful  to  sinners.  “  God  thus 
appears  as  a  loving  father,  who  is  willing  to  grant  pardon  to  sinners,  but  also  as  a  just  and 
wise  father,  who,  far  from  exhibiting  any  unseasonable  and  improper  tenderness,  will  im¬ 
plant  in  the  minds  of  the  children  whom  he  pardons,  a  most  vivid  aversion  to  their  former 
sins,  and  teach  them  by  an  example  [Grotius],  the  dreadful  consequences  that  attend 
the  violation  of  his  laws,  and  the  misery  which  they  themselves  have  deserved.” 


§  300.  The  Doctrine  of  Atonement. 


499 


Jesus  as  a  solemn  confirmation  on  the  part  of  God  of  his  willingness  to  par¬ 
don  sin.  Generally  speaking  these  supernaturalists  did  not  strictly  adhere 
to  the  definitions  of  the  symbolical  books,  and  only  admitted  that  which 
they  thought  could  be  proved  by  the  plain  words  of  Scripture.  Nevertheless 
they  did  not  wholly  reject  the  theory  of  accommodation,  especially  as  applied 
to  God.  See  JBaur,  p.  547  ss. 

6  Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen  der  blossen  Vernunft,  p.  87  ss.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  Kant,  man  must,  after  all,  deliver  himself.  A  substitution,  in  the 
proper  sense  of  that  word,  cannot  take  place.  It  is  impossible  that  liabilities 
should  be  transmissible  like  debts  (p.  88).  Neither  does  the  reformation  of 
the  heart  pay  off  former  debts.  Thus  man  would  still  have  to  expect  an 
infinite  punishment  on  account  of  the  infinite  guilt  which  he  has  contracted. 
Nevertheless  the  extinction  of  guilt  is  possible.  For  inasmuch  as,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  opposition  ( antinomy )  existing  between  moral  perfection  and 
external  happiness,  he  who  amends  his  conduct  has  to  undergo  the  same 
sufferings  as  he  who  perseveres  in  his  evil  course,  and  the  former  bears  those 
sufferings  with  a  worthy  heart  for  the  sake  of  virtue,  he  willingly  submits  to 
them  as  the  punishment  due  the  old  man  for  his  former  sins.  In  a  physical 
aspect  he  continues  the  same  man,  but  in  a  moral  aspect,  he  has  become  a 
a  new  man ;  thus  the  latter  suffers  in  the  room  of  the  former.  But  that 
which  thus  takes  place  in  man  himself,  as  an  internal  act,  is  manifested  in 
the  person  of  Christ  (the  Son  of  God)  in  a  visible  manner,  as  the  personified 
idea ;  that  which  the  new  man  takes  upon  himself,  while  the  old  man  is 
dying,  is  represented  in  this  representative  of  mankind  as  the  death  which 
he  suffered  once  for  all  (comp.  p.  89  ss.).  Nor  can,  in  the  opinion  of  Kant, 
any  external  expiation  (not  even  that  of  the  Son  of  God  as  our  ideal  repre¬ 
sentative)  supply  the  lack  of  our  own  self-improvement  (p.  96  and  163). — 
Concerning  those  theologians  who  adopted  the  principles  of  Kant,  such  as 
Tief trunk,  (Susskind),  Staudlin ,  Ammon ,  and  others,  see  Baur ,  1.  c. — The 
theory  of  Kant  was  modified  by  Krug ,  in  his  Widerstreit  der  Vernunft  mit 
sich  selbst,  in  der  Versohnungslehre  dargestellt  und  aufgelost,  Ztillichau,  1802, 
(Gesammelte  Schriften,  i.  Abtheilung  :  Theologische  Scliriften,  vol.  i.,  1830, 
p.  295  ss.).  See  Baur ,  p.  589  ss. 

7  Wegscheider ,  p.  iii.,  c.  ii.,  §  142,  reduces  the  design  of  Christ’s  death  to 
this  :  Per  religionis  doctrinam  a  Christo  propositam  et  ipsius  morte  sancitam 
hominibus,  dummodo  illius  praeceptis  omni,  quo  par  est,  studio  obsequantur, 
veram  monstrari  viam  et  rationem,  qua,  repudiatis  quibusvis  sacrificiis  aliis- 
que  caerimoniis  placandi  numinis  divina  caussa  institutis,  vero  Dei  ej usque 
praeceptorum  amore  ducti  Deo  probari  possint.  Attamen  (continues  he)  ne 
animis  fortioribus  bene  consulendo  imbecilliores  offendamus ,  sententiam  de 
morte  Jesu  Christi  expiatoria,  ipsorum  scriptorum  ss.  exemplo,  etiam  xymbo- 
lica  quadam  ratione  adumbrare  licebit,  ita  ut  mors  Christi  proponatur  vei 
tamquam  symbolum,  quo  sacrificia  qualicunque  sublata  sint,  ac  reconciliatio 
hominis  cum  Deo  significata  et  venia  peccatornm  cuivis  vere  emendato  so- 
lenmi  ritu  confirmata,  etc.  He  uses  very  strong  language  in  opposition  to 
the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  (which  he  caricatures) :  Omnino  vero  doctores 
caveant,  ne  conscientine  improborum,  imprimis  morti  propinquorum,  quasi 
veternum  obducant  nimium  jactando  vim  sanguinis  Christi  expiatoriam,  quo 


500 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Deus  Molochi  instar,  piaculi  innocentis  quippe  sanguinem  sitientis,  placatui 
sistatur.  (Comp.  Bengel ,  above,  note  1,  and  Reinhard ,  note  5).  On  the  ra« 
tional  supernaturalistic  theory  of  Schott  and  Bretschneider ,  comp.  Baur ,  p. 
608  ss. 

8  In  his  Commentatio  de  Morte  Christi  expiatoria,  Berol.,  1813  (reprinted 
in  his  Opuscula,  Berol.,  1830).  The  views  propounded  in  that  treatise  are 
completed  and  corrected  in  the  latter  writings  of  De  Wette  (comp,  the  pre¬ 
face  to  his  Opuscula).  Religion  und  Theologie,  p.  253  :  “  We  do  not  think 
like  many  modern  theologians,  that  the  doctrine  of  atonement  is  a  useless 
or  even  pernicious  remnant  of  Judaism  in  Christianity. . .  .we  regard  it  (as 
grasped  by  the  feelings)  as  an  aesthetic  religious  symbol  which  exerts  the 
most  beneficial  influence  upon  the  pious  mind .  The  consciousness  of  guilt 
is  the  religious  sentiment  of  submission,  by  which  we  humble  ourselves  be¬ 
fore  God,  and  through  which  we  obtain  peace.  As  all  ideas  have  their  his¬ 
torical  and  personal  manifestation  in  Christ,  so  too  this  idea  of  redemption, 
which  surpasses  all  others,  in  order  that  the  entire  life  of  mankind  might 
be  reflected  in  him. . .  .In  the  death  of  Christ,  which  is  the  greatest  proof 
of  his  love,  we  see  displayed  both  the  magnitude  of  our  depravity,  and  the 
victory  over  it.”  Comp,  his  Dogmatik,  §  73,  a  and  b.  The  symbolical  in¬ 
terpretation  of  Christ’s  death  adopted  by  De  Wette  differs  from  that  of 
Kant  (and  Wegscheider),  in  addressing  itself  to  the  feelings  of  man,  and 
thus  making  the  appropriation  of  that  event  a  necessary  act  on  the  part  of 
every  one,  inasmuch  as  religion  itself  has* its  root  in  those  feelings.  On  the 
other  hand  Kant  regarded  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  symbol  designed  to  assist 
the  understanding  (as  a  needful  aid  for  those  who  require  a  symbolical  re¬ 
presentation  of  abstract  ideas). 

9  According  to  Schleiermacher ,  the  redeeming  and  atoning  principle  is 
not  the  single  fact  that  Christ  died,  but  a  vital  union  with  him.  (In  this 
union  he  recognizes  a  mystical  element,  which  he  distinguishes  from  the 
magical  as  well  as  the  empirical,  assigning  to  it  an  intermediate  place.)  By 
means  of  this  vital  union  we  appropriate  to  ourselves  Christ’s  righteousness 
(his  obedience  unto  death)  ;*  this  appropriation,  however,  is  not  to  be  con¬ 
founded  with  the  mere  external  theory  of  vicarious  satisfaction.  But  inas¬ 
much  as  this  single  being  represents  the  totality  of  believers,  he  may  be 
rather  called  our  saiisfaction-maJcing  substitute.  Comp,  his  Christlicher 
Glaube,  ii.  p.  103,  ss.,  p.  128,  ss.  Banr,  614,  ss.  [According  to  Schleier¬ 
macher  our  reconciliation  consists  in  our  reception  into  the  common  life  of 
Christianity,  and  sharing  its  common  spirit.  But  since  this  life  exists  only 
in  the  finite  form  of  an  historical  process,  there  is  no  absolute  reconciliation, 
no  unity  with  God.  Baur ,  Dogmengesch.,  287.]  In  opposition  to  Schleier¬ 
macher,  Steudel  defended  the  orthodox  doctrine,  see  Baur ,  p.  642. — Nitzsch , 
following  Schleiermacher,  endeavored  (System  der  christlichen  Lehre,  p. 
238-248),  to  assign  a  more  definite  significance  to  Christ’s  passive  obedience, 
which  in  the  opinion  of  Schleiermacher,  is  only  the  crown  of  his  active  obe¬ 
dience.  He  made  a  distinction  between  reconciliation  and  expiation  ( icaraX - 
Xayrj  and  iXaoyog). 

§ 

«  Schleiermacher  rejected  the  phrase  that  Christ  fulfilled  the  law ;  he  only  fulfilled 
the  Divine  will,  p.  134-136. 


§  300.  The  Doctrine  of  Atonement. 


501 


16  Fichte ,  Anweisung  zum  seligen  Leben,  especially  the  fifth  Lecture,  p. 
124,  ss. ;  the  ninth  and  tenth,  p.  251,  ss.  Baur ,  p.  691,  ss.  Schelling , 
Methode  des  akademischen  Studiums,  §  299,  note  8).  Comp.  Blasche,  das 
Bose;  etc.,  p.  304,  ss.  Hegel,  Keligionsphilosophie,  Vol.  ii.  p.  246,  ss.,  p. 
249  :  “God  is  dead:  this  is  the  most  dreadful  idea,  that  all  that  is  eternal, 
all  that  is  true,  is  no  more — that  the  negation  itself  is  in  God  ;  the  highest 
sorrow,  the  consciousness  of  perfect  inability  to  help  oneself,  the  giving  up 
of  all  that  is  higher,  is  connected  with  this  idea.  But  the  process  does  not 
stop  here  ;  on  the  contrary,  a  change  takes  place — viz.,  God  preserves  himself 
in  this  process,  which  thus  becomes  the  death  of  death.  God  rises  again  to 
life,  and  thus  turns  to  the  opposite.”. . . . P.  251  :  “  It  is  infinite  love,  that  God 
identifies  himself  with  that  which  is  foreign  to  him,  in  order  to  destroy  it. 
This  is  the  import  of  Christ’s  death.”  P.  253  :  “  The  phrase  :  God  him¬ 
self  is  dead,  occurs  in  a  Lutheran  hymn  ;  this  means,  that  the  human,  the 
finite,  the  frail,  the  negative,  itself  contains  a  divine  principle,  is  in  God 
himself;  that  the  being- Another  [ das  Andersein ],  the  finite,  the  nega¬ 
tive,  is  not  without  God,  does  not  prevent  the  unity  with  God,”  etc. — 
[What  in  Schleiermacher  takes  place  only  within  the  sphere  of  conscious¬ 
ness  and  history,  becomes  in  Hegel  the  absolute  process  of  God,  or  of  the 
spirit.  It  is  presupposed,  that  the  antagonism  in  itself  is  abolished.  This 
is  what  makes  up  the  whole  historic  course  of  the  Godman.  In  him,  as  in 
an  individual,  is  represented  what  belongs  to  the  very  nature  of  God  or  of 
the  spirit,  viz.,  that  it  must  become  external  to  itself,  become  another,  become 
nature,  be  individualised  ;  and  also  be  one  (united)  with  itself,  in  this  dirern- 
tion.  The  transient,  external  history  of  the  Godman,  his  death  and  resurrec¬ 
tion  must  be  spiritualized,  as  the  process  of  the  finite  spirit  subduing  the 
limits  and  frailties  of  its  natural  existence,  and  reconciling  itself  with  its 
real  nature.  JBaur,  Dogmengeschichte,  pp.  387-8.]  Comp.  Baur ,  1.  c.  p. 
712,  ss.,  and  his  Christliche  Gnosis,  p.  671,  ss. — Daub,  Theologumena 
(quoted  by  Baur,  p.  696,  ss.)  :  “  The  world  cannot  by  itself  render  satisfac¬ 
tion  to  God ;  God  alone  possesses  a  nature  which  can  make  satisfaction,  or 
reconcile.  As  God,  rendering  satisfaction  to  God,  he  is  the  Son  ;  as  he  to 
whom  satisfaction  is  made,  the  Father ;  but  both  are  in  themselves  One ; 
the  atonement  belongs  to  the  nature  of  God,  and  is  as  eternal  as  the  crea¬ 
tion  and  preservation.  God  from  eternity  sacrifices  himself  for  the  world ; 
or,  God  the  Father  commands  God  the  Son  to  sacrifice  himself  for  him,  and 
make  satisfaction  to  him.  Accordingly,  inasmuch  as  God  making  satisfaction 
puts  himself  in  place  of  the  world,  this  satisfaction  is  vicarious,  and  active  as 
well  as  passive.  God  making  reconciliation  elevates  the  world  to  absolute 
necessity,  and  is  thus  at  the  same  time  its  creator  and  preserver,  or  the  cause 
of  its  absolute  reality  and  liberty.” — Marheineke ,  Dogmatik,  §  227-247 
(quoted  by  Baur,  p.  718,  ss.)  :  “By  the  reconciliation  of  the  world  with 
God  through  God,  we  understand  that  the  Divine  Being,  one  with  himself 
and  with  the  world,  makes  the  transition  through  the  corruption  of  the 
world,  and  destroys  it.  God,  as  the  being  who  is  from  eternity  sufficient  to 
himself,  is  also  the  being  who  from  eternity  makes  satisfaction  to  himself. 
But  God  can  make  satisfaction  only  as  God-man,  in  whom  reconciliation  is 
possible,  inasmuch  as  his  human  nature  is  not  essentially  different  from  the 


* 


502 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Divine.  The  satisfaction  made  by  the  God-man  is  vicarious,  since  he,  in 
making  reconciliation,  represents  the  world.  This  implies  a  twofold  state¬ 
ment  ;  first,  that  the  world,  in  its  state  of  corruption,  cannot  make  satisfac¬ 
tion  to  God ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  world,  in  its  truth  and  reality,  as  human 
nature,  or  in  its  true  and  holy  principle,  is  represented  by  the  person  of  the 
One  Man  who  is  the  representative  of  all  men,  and  thus  the  universal  man, 
though  he  be  but  one  individual.” — Us  ter  i,  Paulinischer  Lehrbegriff,  p.  133  : 
“The  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  is  begotten  of  the  original  ground 
of  all  things  (the  Father),  is  the  reconciliation  of  the  finite  with  the  infinite, 
the  created  with  the  primal  ground  of  being,  the  temporal  with  the  eternal. 
The  incarnate  Son  of  God,  by  his  death,  returns  from  the  sphere  of  the 
finite,  created,  and  temporal,  to  that  of  the  infinite,  uncreated,  and  eternal, 
as  the  Spirit  which  is  now  reigning  in  the  finite,  and  unites  it  eternally  with 
God.” 

11  Klaiber  (quoted  by  JBaur,  p.  648),  and  especially  Hasenkamp ,  (both  the 
father  and  the  son),  Menken  (a  pastor  in  Bremen),  Collenbusch  in  Barmen, 
and  Rudolph  Stier.  All  these  agreed  in  rejecting  the  idea  of  a  conflict 
between  the  love  and  justice  of  God  (Hasenkamp  and  Menken,  in  particular, 
expressed  themselves  in  strong  language  on  this  point)  ;  and  in  regarding 
the  divine  love  as  the  true  principle  of  redemption,  but  differed  on  some 
minor  points  ( e .  g.  Stier  retains  the  idea  of  the  divine  wrath.)  For  further 
particulars  see  Baur ,  p.  656  ss.,  where  the  literature  is  also  given.  Comp. 
Krug ,  Die  Lehre  des  Dr.  Collenbusch,  Elberfeld,  1846,  p.  44. 

13  To  this  class  belong  the  author  of  an  essay  published  in  the  Evangeli- 
sche  Kirchenzeitung,  1834  ;  Geschichtliches  aus  der  Versohnungs-  und  Ge- 
nugthuungslehre  (see  Baur ,  p.  672  ss.  and  Goschel ,  Zerstreute  Blatter  aus 
den  Hand-  und  Htilfsacten  eines  Juristen,  etc.) ;  the  latter  especially  de¬ 
fended  the  juridical  aspect  of  the  doctrine  in  question,  which  had  given 
offence  to  many  others.  Comp.  Tholuck’s  literarischer  Anzeiger,  1833,  p, 
69,  ss.  ;  Evangelische  Kirchenzeitung,  1834,  p.  14  ;  Baur ,  p.  682  ss. — The  . 
controversy  has  entered  into  a  new  phase,  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  the  positions  taken  by  Hofmann  of  Erlangen,  in  his  Schriftbeweis, 
and  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  Protest,  und  Kirche,  March,  1856 — deviating  from 
strict  orthodoxy  in  respect  to  “the  vicarious  satisfaction.”  Philippi  replied 
in  the  preface  to  the  second  edition  of  his  commentary  to  the  Romans  ;  and 
in  the  tractate,  “Herr  Dr.  Hofmann  gegenuber  der  lutherisclien  Versohn-- 
ungs-  und  Rechtfertigungslehre,”  Frankf.,  1856;  and  Schmid  in  his  “Dr. 
von  H’s.,  Lehre  von  der  Versohnung,”  Nordl.,  1856.  In  rejoinder  Hofmann, 
Schutzschriften  fur  eine  neue  Weise,  alte  Wahrlieit  zu  lehren,  Nordl.,  1856. 
[Four  Parts,  1856-9.]  Comp.  Ebrard  in  the  Allgem.  Kirchenzeitung,  Oct. 
1856.  [See  also  Ebrard,  Die  Lehre  von  der  stellvertretenden  Genugthung 
in  der  heiligen  Schrift  begriindet,  Konigsb.,  1857.  G.  Thomasius ,  Das  Be- 
kenntniss  der  lutherischen  Kirche  von  der  Versohnung,  und  die  Versohnungs- 
lehre  Dr.  C.  K.  von  Hofmann’s.  Mit  einen  Vorwort  von  Dr.  Th.  Harnack, 
Erlangen,  1857.  Delitzsch  in  the  Appendix  to  his  commentary  on  Epistle 
to  Hebrews.  Bodemeyer,  Zur  Lehre  d.  Versohnung,  1858.  The  Vorwort 
to  the  Evang.  Kirchenzeitung,  1858,  against  Hofmann.  Gess,  Zur  Lehre 
d.  Versohnung,  in  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theoh,  1858,  pp.  713-788,  on  An- 


503 


§  301.  Justification.  Grace. 

i 

selm’s  doctrine,  etc.  A.  Schweizer ,  Lehre  des  Paulus  vom  erlosenden  Tode, 
etc.,  in  Stud,  und  Kritiken,  1858  ;  and  Baur  in  reply,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  wiss. 
Theol.,  1859.  WeizsdcTcer  gave  a  review  of  the  recent  controversy  in  his 
article,  Um  was  handelt  es  sich  in  dem  Streite  liber  die  Versohnungslehre,  in 
Jalirb.  f.  deutsche  Theol.,  1858,  pp.  114-188.  Schneider ,  The  Lutheran 
Doctrine  of  Christ’s  Vicarious  Death,  transl.  in  Brit,  and  Foreign  Evang.  Re¬ 
view,  1861,  from  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  I860.] 

[In  several  recent  English  works,  the  lift -theory  is  advocated,  in  distinc¬ 
tion  from  the  satisfaction-theory  :  e.  g.  by  Maurice  (Doct.  of  Sacrifice,  1854), 
reply  by  Candlish  of  Edinb. ;  John  McLeod  Campbell ,  The  Nature  of  the 
Atonement,  Camb.,  1826  ;  Jas.  13.  JBrown ,  The  Divine  Life  in  Man  ;  Henry 
Solly ,  Doctrine  of  Atonement  by  the  Son  of  God,  1861.  Comp,  also  Wil¬ 
liam  Thomson,  The  Atoning  Work  of  Christ;  the  Bampton  Lectures,  for 
1853.  E.  Mellor ,  The  Atonement,  its  Relation  to  Pardon,  2d  ed.,  1860.  Jc 
C.  Macdonnell,  Six  Discourses  on  Doctrine  of  Atonement  (Univ.  Dublin), 
1858-  A.  Robertson ,  Hist,  of  the  Atonement  Controversy  in  connection  with 
the  Secession  Church  (Scotland:  Morisonianism).  On  the  controversies  in 
the  United  States,  see  above,  §  285,  d,  e.  Comp,  also  Albert  Barnes ,  The 
Atonement  in  Relation  to  Law  and  Moral  Government,  1859.  Shedd ,  The 
Atonement  a  Satisfaction  for  the  Ethical  Nature  of  both  God  and  Man,  Bib. 
Sacra,  1860. — On  the  extent  of  the  Atonement,  see  Richards'  Lectures 
(1846),  pp.  302-328  ;  and  Princeton  Rev.,  1856. — BushnelV s  views  in  his 
God  in  Christ  (1849),  pp.  183-275,  and  Christ  in  Theology,  1851,  212, 
330.] 

The  doctrine  of  the  Descensus  a.d  inferos  was  agreeable  neither  to  the  views  of  the  ra¬ 
tionalists,  nor  to  the  modern  supematuralists.  The  adherents  of  the  speculative  philosophy- 
regarded  it  as  a  mere  symbolical  expression,  to  indicate  that,  even  in  the  most  corrupted 
souls,  there  is  still  one  entrance  for  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Compare  the  passages  from  the 
works  of  Reinhard ,  De  Wette,  and  Marheineke ,  collected  by  Base ,  Dogmatik,  p.  344. — The 
doctrine  of  the  three  offices  of  Christ  was  combated  by  Ernesti ,  in  his  Opuscula  Theologica, 
p.  411  ss.  Modern  theologians  (such  as  Schleiermacher)  have  revived  it.  Comp.  Konig, 
Die  Lehre  von  Christi  Hollenfahrt,  Frankf.,  1842 :  and  especially,  E.  Gilder,  Die  Lehre 
von  der  Erscheinung  Jesu  Christi  under  den  Todten,  in  ihrem  Zusammenhange  mit  der 
Lehre  von  den  letzten  Dingen,  Bern.,  1853.  [On  Giider,  see  Zeitschrift  f.  die  lutherische 
Theologie,  1857,  p.  391  sq.  V.  U  MaywaMen,  Tod,  Todenreich,  etc.,  Berl.,  1854;  transl., 
by  J.  F.  Schon ,  Lond.  1856.  J.  Korber ,  Katholische  Lehre  von  der  Hollenfahrt  Jesu 
Christi,  Landshut,  1860.  Holemann  in  Bibel  Studien,  1861,  pp.  89-129. — F.  Huydekoper , 
Belief  of  First  Three  Centuries  on  Christ’s  Mission  to  Underworld,  Boston,  1854.  The 
Intermediate  State,  by  the  late  Duke  of  Manchester,  Loud.,  1856.  J.  Munscher  in  Bib. 
Sacra.,  1859.] 

§  301 

THE  ECONOMY  OF  REDEMPTION.  JUSTIFICATION  AND  SANCTIFICATION. 

(FAITH  AND  GOOD  WORKS.)  GRACE  AND  LIBERTY. 

PREDESTINATION. 

The  orthodox  view  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement  having  been 
abandoned,  the  juridical  idea  of  justification,  as  distinctly  separated 
from  that  of  sanctification,  also  lost  its  significance,  and  Protestant 


504 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Griticism. 


theologians  manifested  a  leaning  to  the  Homan  Catholic  doctrine,  in 
regarding  both  as  different  aspects  of  one  and  the  same  divine  act.1 
Kant  claimed  for  man  the  power  of  amending  himself  by  his  own 
power  of  will,  notwithstanding  his  theory  of  radical  evil  ;a  hut  he 
rejected,  in  accordance  with  the  essential  principles  of  Protestantism, 
all  external  and  legal  righteousness  by  works,  or  any  merit  based  on 
the  same.3  He  also  pointed  out  the  importance  of  faith,  but  made 
a  distinction  between  the  statutory  (historical)  faith  in  the  doctrines 
of  the  church,  and  the  faith  of  religion  (i.  e.  reason),  and  ascribed 
to  the  latter  alone  an  influence  upon  morality.4  The  same  was  the 
case  with  the  rationalists  in  general,  who  have*  sometimes  been  un¬ 
justly  charged  with  giving  countenance  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doc¬ 
trine  of  righteousness  by  works,  in  connection  with  their  Pelagian 
tendencies.  The  Pietists  and  Methodists  retained  the  strict  views 
of  Augustine,  though  with  various  modifications.6  The  adherents 
of  the  modern  theology,  too,  have  either  defined  the  idea  of  liberty 
in  the  sense  of  Augustine  rather  than  in  that  of  Pelagius,  or  endeav¬ 
ored,  from  a  higher  point  of  view,  to  bring  about  a  reconciliation 
between  the  two  systems.7  Thus  too  the  Augustinian  and  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  predestination ,®  despite  the  warning  and  threatening 
voice,  which  Herder  had  once  raised  against  the  hand  that  should 
again  renew  the  strife,9  was  acutely  defended  by  Schleiermacher , 
who  endeavored  to  remove  all  its  offensive  aspects.10  On  the  other 
hand,  the  advocates  of  its  ruder  form  were  led  to  pass  a  harsh  and 
condemnatory  sentence  upon  their  opponents.11  Modern  theology 
in  general  has  endeavored  to  overcome  the  harshness  of  the  dogma, 
without  giving  up  its  deeper  significancy . 13 

1  Henke  maintained  that  it  is  indifferent  whether  emendatio  precedes,  or 
the  pacatio  animi ;  Lineamenta,  cxxiii.  But  such  indifference  could  not 
last.  More  profound  investigations  contributed  to  bring  about  a  higher  union. 
Schleiermacher,  Christliche  Glaubenslehre,  vol.  ii.  pp.  109,  110.  Marheineke , 
Dogmatik,  p.  301  :  “The  idea  of  justification  must  be  defined  in  accordance 
with  the  spirit  of  Christian  religion,  as  the  union  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
with  the  communication  of  love.”  Comp,  also  Menken  and  Hahn  (quoted  - 
by  Mohler ,  Symbolik,  p.  151 — in  reference  to  the  tides  formata).  Hase, 
Dogmatik,  p,  419-21.  In  modern  times,  however,  the  economy  of  redemp¬ 
tion  as  propounded  by  earlier  theologians  has  been  again  defended  (in  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine),  in  order  to  prevent  its  being  refined 
away.  See  the  work  of  Baur,  in  reply  to  Mohler,  p.  235  ss.  [The  idea  of 
faith,  as  merely  receptive  of  God’s  declaration  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  was 
not  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  times,  which  gave  an  intense  signifi¬ 
cancy  to  self-consciousness.  In  proportion  as  faith,  instead  of  being  viewed 
as  a  mere  form,  received  definite  contents,  as  a  self-active  principle,  the  an¬ 
tagonism  between  faith  and  works,  and  between  Protestantism  and  Catholi¬ 
cism,  became  weaker.. Kant  gave  prominence  to  the  moral  ideal  personified 
in  Christ,  ^chleiermacher  to  the  participation  in  Christ’s  perfection,  through 


301.  Justification.  Grace. 


505 

vital  union  with  him  ;  Hegel  to  the  subjective  assurance  of  a  reconciliation 
objectively  ensured,  i.  e.  to  man’s  knowledge  of  his  oneness  with  the  absolute 
spirit — for  which  Strauss  substituted  the  concrete  idea  of  humanity.  Baur , 
Dogmengesch.,  389-390. — In  the  Anglican  literature,  the  works  of  Davenant , 
(1631),  Bp.  Bownam  (1633),  and  O'Brien,  Bp.  of  Ossory  (against  Bull)  de¬ 
fended  the  Protestant  doctrine,  modified  in  the  teachings  of  Bull ,  Water- 
land  and  Hooker.  The  views  of  the  Oxford  School  in  J.  H.  NewmaFs  Lects. 
on  Justif,,  1838.  Comp.  Wliately's  Errors  of  Romanism  :  Heurtley's  Barnp- 
ton  Lectures,  1845  :  Afcllvaine's  Oxford  Theology. — On  the  American  dis¬ 
cussions,  see  Princeton  Essays,  voh  i. ;  Bu field  on  Finney ,  in  Bibl.  Repos., 
1845;  JBoyd  in  Presb.  Quarterly,  1854;  Stearns  on  Justification,  1853  ; 
Albert  Barnes ,  How  shall  man  be  just  with  God?  1854;  President  Lord's 
Sermon  on  Justification,  1854.  George  Junkin ,  Treatise  on  Justif.,  2d  ed., 
1850.  See  §  285,  d ,  pp.  236,  244.] 

a  In  his  Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen  der  blossen  Yernunft,  p.  45  : 
“  That  which  man  is  in  a  moral  aspect,  depends  on  his  own  exertions.  It 
must  be  the  effect  of  his  own  free  will,  for  otherwise  he  could  not  be  respon¬ 
sible  for  it,  and  accordingly,  would  be  neither  morally  good,  nor  morally  bad. 
P.  46  :  Notwithstanding  the  fall,  the  command  is  given  :  W Qmicst  be  better 
men;  hence  we  must  be  able  to  be  so.... At  the  same  time  it  must  be 
presupposed  that  a  germ  of  good  has  remained  in  its  original  purity,  that  it 
could  neither  be  destroyed  nor  corrupted ;  surely  this  germ  cannot  be  self- 
love,”  etc.  P.  53  :  “  There  is  one  thing  in  our  soul,  which,  if  we  attentively 
examine,  we  cannot  cease  to  consider  writh  the  highest  wonder,  a  win¬ 
der  which  is  not  only  legitimate,  but  also  serves  to  elevate  our  souls. 
This  one  thing  is  the  original  moral  nature  of  man ” ....  P.  58  :  “  According 
to  moral  religion  (an  appellation  which,  of  all  the  public  forms  of  religion, 
can  alone  be  applied  to  Christianity),  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  that  every 
one  must  use  all  possible  efforts  to  become  a  new  man”  (Luke  xix.  12-16). 
Comp,  his  Lehre  vom  Kategorischen  Imperativ  (in  the  Kritik  der  prakti- 
schen  Yernunft). 

3  Ibid.,  p.  52  :  “The  moral  culture  of  man  must  not  commence  with  the 
amendment  of  his  conduct ,  but  with  a  complete  change  in  his  mode  of  think¬ 
ing ,  and  with  the  basis  of  his  character .”  (Comp,  the  distinction  which  he 
made  between  legality  and  morality ,  Kritik  der  praktischen  Yernunft,  p. 

106.) 

4  Ibid.,  p.  157  ss.  Of  course  by  religion  he  understands  the  religion  of 
reason,  into  which  historical  faith  must  gradually  pass  over  (p.  169).  Con¬ 
cerning  divine  grace  (according  to  the  principles  of  the  Kantian  philosophy), 
comp.  Tief trunk ,  iii.,  p.  132  ss. ;  concerning  the  effects  of  grace,  see  p.  166 
ss.  By  saving  faith  he  understands  (p.  204),  1.  That  man  himself  does  all 
he  can  in  order  to  obtain  salvation  ;  2.  That  he  leaves  the  remaining  part  to 
the  wisdom  of  God. 

6  Bengel  bitterly  complained  of  the  Pelagian  tendencies  of  his  age  ;  men 
had  become  increasingly  strangers  to  the  effects  of  grace,  and  that  to  such 
an  extent,  that  Pelagius,  if  he  could  rise  again  in  our  day,  would  undoubt¬ 
edly  be  dissatisfied  with  the  present  Pelagianism.  See  Burk ,  p.  238.  The 
rationalists  and  the  prosaic  tendency  of  the  age  took  offense  principally  at 


506 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


the  supernatural  effects  of  grace :  see  J.  J.  Spalding ,  Ueber  den  Werth  der 
Gefiilde,  1764.  J.  L.  Z.  JunJcheim ,  Von  dem  Uebernaturlichen  in  den 
Gnadenwirkungen.  For  further  particulars  see  JBretschneider ,  Entwurf, 
p.  677  ss.,  and  comp.  Wegscheider ,  §  151  ss.,  especially  §  161  (De  unione 
mystica).  The  rationalists  acknowledged  no  other  practical  Christianity 
than  that  which  manifests  itself  in  external  actions,  and  for  the  most  part 
misunderstood  the  true  nature  of  mysticism,  the  dynamic  in  the  doctrine 
concerning  faith  and  its  internal  effects.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Christian 
rationalists  (in  distinction  from  the  deists)  always  urged  the  importance  of 
making  the  heart  the  source  of  our  actions,  and  reject  the  lifeless  works  of 
the  law;  see  Wegscheider ,  §  155,  p.  542,  in  reference  to  the  words  of 
Luther  :  “  Good  and  pious  works  nevermore  make  a  good  and  pious  man,  hut 
a  good  and  pious  man  makes  good  works :  the  fruit  does  not  bring  forth  the 
tree,  but  the  tree  brings  forth  the  fruit.”  ( Walch ,  xix.,  p.  1222  ss.)  Comp. 
Staudlin ,  Dogmatik,  p.  417,  and  others,  quoted  by  Hase ,  Dogmatik,  p.  419. 

6  The  differences  obtaining  among  the  pietists  and  Methodists  had,  for  the 
most  part,  reference  to  the  struggles  of  repentance,  to  the  questions,  whether 
grace  may  be  lost  or  not,  whether  it  is  possible  to  attain  moral  perfection  in 
this  present  life,  to  the  unio  mystica  cum  Deo,  etc.  Thus  Wesley  (1740) 
differed  from  the  United  Brethren  in  reference  to  the  necessity  of  good 
works,  and  the  various  degrees  of  faith  ;  see  Southey  (translated  by  Krum - 
macher ),  i.  p.  298,  ss. —  Wesley  and  Whitefield  separated  from  each  other, 
because  the  former  asserted  the  universality  of  grace,  while  the  latter  advo- 
cated  the  particularistic  theory;  see  ibid.  p.  330,  ss. — The  Pietists  charged 
the  United  Brethren  -with  a  want  of  zeal  in  the  work  of  sanctification. — 
Bengel  charged  Zinzendorf  with  Antinomianism ;  Abriss  der  Bruderge- 
meinde,  p.  128,  ss.  In  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  spiritual  union  (as  the 
United  Brethren  understood  it),  he  expressed  himself  as  follows,  p.  145  : 

“  This  doctrine  has  the  appearance  of  the  greatest  spirituality,  but  in  reality 
it  offers  richer  food  to  the  flesh  than  any  mere  man  of  the  world  can  at¬ 
tain  unto.”  Comp,  on  the  other  side,  Idea  Fidei  Fratrum,  §  118,  §  149, 
ss.,  §  169,  ss. — According  to  Swedenborg  (in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  church,  and  to  the  Moravians),  the  imputation  of  the  merit  of  Christ  is 
a  word  without  meaning,  unless  we  understand  by  it  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
after  repentance ;  for  nothing  belonging  to  the  Lord  can  be  imputed  to  man, 
but  he  (the  Lord)  can  promise  salvation  after  man  has  repented,  i.  e.  after  - 
he  has  seen  and  acknowledged  his  sins,  and  if  he  afterwards,  from  love  to 
the  Lord,  abstain  from  them.  This  condition  being  fulfilled,  the  promise  of 
salvation  is  made  to  man  in  such  a  manner  that  man  cannot  be  saved  by  his 
own  merit  or  his  own  righteousness,  but  by  the  Lord,  who  alone  has  fought 
with  and  overcome  hell,  etc.  See  Divine  Revelation,  i.  p.  47.  Ibid.: 

“  There  is  a  Divine  faith,  and  a  human  faith  ;  those  who  repent  possess 
Divine  faith,  but  those  who  do  not  repent,  and  nevertheless  believe  in  impu¬ 
tation,  possess  human  faith.” 

7  De  Wette  considered  the  subject  in  question  in  a  twofold  aspect,  each 
of  which  may,  in  a  certain  sense,  be  justified — (viz.  the  religious,  and  the 
ethical  aspect,  that  of  faith  and  that  of  reason)  ;  see  his  Religion  und  The- 
ologie,  p.  242,  ss.  (comp,  his  Dogmatik,  §  76,  ss.).  Hegel  used  the  word 


§  301.  Justification.  Grace. 


507 


liberty  in  a  higher  sense  (contrasted  with  the  liberty  of  choice) — viz.,  as 
liberty  which  has  its  origin  in  union  with  God,  so  that  in  one  respect  all  is 
grace,  in  another  all  is  liberty,  the  actings  of  God  appear  ours,  and  vice 
versa:  see  bis  Philosophic  der  Religion,  i.  p.  157.  Hase,  Hutterus  Redi- 
vivus,  p.  274.  For  a  further  theological  discussion,  comp.  Schleiermaclier , 
Christliche  Glaubenslehre,  ii.  §  86-93,  §  106-112;  Nitzsch ,  System  der 
christlichen  Lehre,  p.  138,  ss.  [Comp.  Julius  Muller ,  Lehre  von  der  Siinde, 
ii.  6-48  (on  formal  and  real  freedom),  and  89-151  (transcendental  and 
empirical  freedom)  ;  see  also  his  representation  of  Augustine’s  views,  i.  45, 
sq. — Kantfs  views  on  freedom  are  reproduced  in  Henry  Solly ,  The  Will, 
Divine  and  Human,  1856  (comp.  Am.  Theol.  Rev.,  1860,  p.  542). — On 
Edwards  on  the  Will,  and  the  American  discussions,  see  §  285,  A] 

8  For  a  considerable  time  controversy  respecting  this  doctrine  had  re¬ 
posed.  It  was  revived  in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century  by  the  work 
of  Joachim  Lange ;  Die  evangelische  Lehre  von  der  allgemeinen  Gnade, 
Halle,  1732.  J.  J.  Waldschmidt ,  a  pastor  in  Hesse,  defended  the  Calvin- 
istic  doctrine  in  opposition  to  Lange,  1735.  For  the  further  progress  of 
this  controversy  see  Schlegel ,  Kirchengeschichte  des  18.  Jahrhunderts,  ii. 
1,  p.  304  ;  Von  Einem ,  ii.  p.  323. 

9  In  his  work:  Yom  Geist  des  .Christenthums,  p.  154  (Dogmatik,  p. 
234)  :  “ Fortunately  our  age  has  consigned  to  oblivion  all  these  unscriptural 
and  lifeless  errors,  as  well  as  the  entire  controversy  respecting  various  gifts, 
which  was  carried  on  in  a  most  unchristian  spirit,  and  may  the  hand 
wither  that  shall  ever  bring  it  back  I”  (Herder  agreed  with  his  contempo¬ 
raries  in  their  low  estimate  of  Augustine  and  the  doctrine  concerning  the 
workings  of  grace ;  for  further  passages  comp,  his  Dogmatik,  p.  230,  ss.) 

10  In  his  essay :  Ueber  die  Lehre  von  der  Erw&hlung  (Theologische  Zeit- 
schrift,  herausgegeben  von  Schleiermacher ,  Dr  Wette ,  und  Lucke,  part  i.  p. 
1,  ss.)  On  the  other  side  :  De  Wette ,  Ueber  die  Lehre  von  der  Erwahlung, 
etc.  (Theologische  Zeitschrift,  part  ii.  p.  83,  ss.).  Bretschneider  (in  the 
Oppositionsschrift  von  Schroter  und  Klein ,  iv.  p.  1-83).  Schleiermacher , 
Christliche  Glaubenslehre,  ii.  §  117-120.  The  milder  aspect  which  he  gave 
to  the  doctrine  in  question  consists  in  regarding  election,  not  as  referring  to 
the  lot  of  man  after  death,  but  to  the  earlier  or  later  admission  to  fellowship 
with  Christ.  The  literature  is  given  by  Bretschneider ,  Entwurf,  p.  677,  ss. 
[Schleiermacher’s  Essay  on  Election,  transl.  by  L.  Woods ,  in  Lit.  and  Theol. 
Review. — Schleiermacher  maintained  the  general  Calvinistic  doctrine,  but 
“  abolished  its  dualism  by  the  idea  of  a  universal  world-organism,  which  for 
the  completion  of  the  race  demands  in  the  individual  every  grade  of  spirit¬ 
ual  capacity  ;  also  looking  to  the  conversion  of  all  in  a  future  life.”  Strauss 
says,  that  he  brought  the  doctrine  out  of  the  theological  sphere  into  the 
philosophical,  and  really  made  the  question  to  be,  whether  there  could  be  an 
independent  human  agency  alongside  of  the  supreme  divine  causality.  See 
Jdaur ,  p.  392. — Comp.  Geo.  Stanley ,  Faber,  Primitive  doctrine  of  Election 
(“ecclesiastical  individualism”),  2d  ed.  1842.  J.  B.  Mozley ,  Augustinian 
Doctrine  of  Predestination,  Lond.,  1855.] 

11  The  views  of  Abr.  Booth  advanced  in  his  work,  The  Reign  of  Grace 
(translated  into  German  by  Krummacher ,  Elberf.,  1831),  were  combated  by 


,508 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


J  P .  Lange ,  Lelire  der  heiligen  Schrift  von  der  freien  und  allgemeinen 
Gnad-e  Gottes,  ibid.,  1831. — On  the  Methodist  controversy  see  note  6  [and 
Abel  Stevens,  Hist,  of  Religious  Movement,  etc.,  New  York,  1859.  On  the 
Methodist  Controversy  in  America — Fitch  and  Fisk — see  Calvinistic  Con¬ 
troversy,  New  York,  1853.]  The  doctrine  of  Predestination  has  found  in 
Kohlbrugge  a  new  defender,  among  the  Reformed. 

12  Comp.  e.  g.  J.  P.  Lange ,  Dogmatik,  ii.  956,  sq.,  Martenson ,  338 — polemi¬ 
cal  against  Sclileiermacher.  Ebrard ,  i.  120,  339,  356,  sq.  ii.  688  sq.  (making  a 
distinction  between  the  theological  and  the  anthropological  question).  See 
also  E.  W.  Krummacher ,  Des  Dogma  von  der  Gnadenwahl,  Duisburg,  1856. 
\Hebart ,  Biblische  Lehre  von  der  Predestination,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  luther- 
iscbe  Theologie,  1858. — The  question  has  been  discussed  between  Schweizer 
and  Ebrard  on  the  relation  of  the  dogmatic  system  of  the  Reformed  Church 
to  necessarianism  (determinism) ;  the  former  represented  this  doctrine  as 
the  life  of  the  Reformed  system,  in  his  Glaubenslehre  d.  Ref.  Kirche,  etc. ; 
see  Ebrard ,  Das  Verhaltniss  d.  ref.  Dogmatik,  etc.,  1849  ;  and  Schweizer  in 
in  the  Tubingen  Zeitschrift,  1851.] 


FOURTH  DIVISION. 


THE  CHURCH.  THE  SACRAMENTS.  ESCHATOLOGY. 

§  302. 

THE  DOCTRINES  CONCERNING  THE  CHURCH. 

As  tlie  spirit  of  worldliness  gained  ground,  it  could  hardly  he 
expected  that  a  clear  sense  of  the  existence  and  functions  of  the 
Church  would  he  retained.  The  perverted  Protestantism  of  the 
so-called  illumination  period  thought  that  every  approach  to  an  in¬ 
dependent  development  of  ecclesiastical  life,  in  opposition  to  the 
state,  had  a  hierarchical  tendency.  After  the  chancellor  Pfaff,  in  Wir- 
temherg,  had  defended  what  is  called  the  collegial  system  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  territorial  system,1  the  latter  was  advocated  by  those 
who  regarded  the  Church  as  an  institution  which  the  state  may  use 
for  disciplinary  purposes,  or,  who  at  the  utmost,  admitted  the  “  utility 
of  the  ministry/”  Considering  the  general  want  of  ecclesiastical 
life,  it  cannot  be  a  matter  of  surprise  that  a  growing  desire  after 
Christian  fellowship  manifested  itself  among  individuals,  which  led 
to  the  formation  of  smaller  churches  within  the  Church  universal, 
such  as  the  Society  of  the  United  Brethren.3  Others,  e.  g.  Sweden¬ 
borg. ,  despairing  of  the  present,  established  the  Church  of  the  New 
J erusalem ,  in  the  ideal  world  in  which  they  lived.4  Kant  alone  rose 
above  the  narrow-mindedness  of  the  friends  of  such  illumination, 
by  directing  attention  once  more  to  the  importance  and  necessity  of 
a  society  based  upon  moral  principles,  or  the  establishment  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  upon  earth.6  But  he  rested  satisfied  with  the 
merely  moral  aspect  ;  wrhile  the  true  church  can  only  be  founded 
upon  profound  religious  principles,  which  must  have  their  origin  in 
spiritual  views  of  religion  in  general,  and  a  more  living  Christology 
in  particular.  On  this  account  modern  theologians  have  come  to 
discuss  the  doctrine  concerning  the  Church  even  more  fully  than  the 
reformers.6  The  development  of  the  Canon  Law,  and  of  ecclesias¬ 
tical  government,  kept  pace  with  the  development  of  the  doctrine. 
On  the  one  hand,  church  and  state  are  entirely  separated  from  each 
other,  e.  g in  the  United  States  of  America7  (attempted  also  in  the 


* 


510 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Canton  de  Yaud,  and  in  Scotland)  ;  on  the  other  hand,  some  specu¬ 
lative  theologians  have  sought  to  bring  about  a  higher  union  of  both 
in  the  state*  others  again  take  an  intermediate  position,  asserting  that 
church  and  state  are  distinguishable  in  idea,  but  practically  must 
exert  a  living  influence  upon  each  other.9 — Puseyism  advanced  with 
new  vigor  the  claim  of  the  Church  of  England  to  superiority,  on 
account  of  the  episcopal  succession  from  the  days  of  the  apostles.10 
The  Irvingites  demanded  a  new  apostolate,  and  the  restitution  of 
the  offices  of  the  apostolic  church.11  Even  in  the  New-Lutheran 
church,  the  idea  of  office  has  been  emphasized  in  such  a  way  as  to 
awaken  anew  the  fear  of  a  heirarchy,  and  to  call  out  strong  oppo¬ 
sition.12 

1  Pfaff  do  Originibus  Juris  ecclesiastici  variaque  ejusdera  indole.  Tiib., 
1719,  4to;  in  1720,  published  with  a  new  essay,  De  Successione  Episcopali. 
The  church  is  a  society,  a  collegium  which  has  its  own  laws  and  privileges. 
The  rights  which  princes  possess  in  ecclesiastical  matters  are  conferred  upon 
them  by  the  church  (silently  or  expressly  ?).  See  Schroc/ch ,  vii.  p.  547,  and 
Stahl ,  Kirchenrecht,  p.  37,  ss.  On  the  other  hand,  the  so-called  territorial 
system  first  propounded  by  Thomasius  (see  §  256,  note  4),  was  more  fully 
developed  by  Just  Henning  Hohmer  (died  1749)  and  others. 

2  See  Spalding ,  Yon  der  Natzbarkeit  des  Predigtamts.  He  was  com¬ 
bated  by  Herder ,  in  the  Provinzialblatter. 

8  Zinzendorf  did  not  intend  to  found  a  sect,  but  to  establish  an  ecclesiola 
in  ecclesia •  see  Spangenberg,  Idea  Fidei  Fratrum,  p.  542:  “The  United 
Brethren  consider  themselves  as  a  very  small  part  of  the  visible  church  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. ..  .Since  they  hold  the  same  doctrines  as  those  of 
the  Evangelical  Church  (set  forth  in  the  Confessio  August.),  they  see  no 
reason  for  separating  from  it. . .  .Those  are  right  who  regard  the  congrega¬ 
tions  of  the  United  Brethren  as  institutions  founded  by  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  his  church,  in  order  to  present  a  barrier  to  the  flood  of  corruption 
now  breaking  in  upon  doctrine  and  life.  The  opinion  of  those  is  well- 
founded  who  regard  them  as  an  hospital  in  which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  only  physician  of  our  souls,  has  collected  many  of  his  poor  and  dis¬ 
eased  followers  to  care  for  them,  and  that  their  wants  may  be  supplied  by 
his  servants.” 

4  Divine  Revelation  of  Swedenborg,  ii.  p.  84 :  “  The  church  is  in  man  ; 
the  church  which  is  without  man,  is  a  church  composed  of  many  in  whom 
the  church  is.” — The  church  is  everywhere,  where  the  word  of  God  is  rightly 
understood. — Swedenborg  thinks  that  the  church  is  everywhere  typified  in 
the  old  Testament.  By  the  New  Jerusalem  spoken  of  in  the  book  of  Reve¬ 
lation  he  understands  the  new  church  as  regards  her  doctrines  (ibid.,  i.,  p. 
132.  The  new  doctrines  hitherto  concealed,  but  now  revealed  by  Sweden¬ 
borg,  constitute  the  new  church,  or  the  church  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  pp. 
138,  139,  and  in  several  other  places. 

6  In  his  Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen  der  blossen  Yernunft;  third  chap* 


§  302.  The  Doctrine  Concerning  the  Church.  511 


er,  p.  119  ss.,  comp,  the  fourth  chapter,  concerning  “Religion  und  Praffen- 
thum,”  p.  211  ss. 

8  In  common  with  the  rationalists,  the  adherents  of  formal  supernaturalism 
lost  the  more  profound  insight  into  the  nature  of  the  church.  Thus  Rein* 
hard ,  treated  of  the  church  in  a  very  external,  desultory  and  negative  manner, 
p.  614  ss.  Comp.  Rohr ,  Briefe  liber  den  Rationalismus,  p.  409  ss.  (quoted 
by  Hase ,  Dogmatik,  p.  455).  Wegscheider ,  Institutiones,  §  185  ss.  gives 
better  definitions. — Schleiermacher  returned  to  that  view,  according  to  which 
the  church  is  a  living  organism  (the  body  of  Christ),  and  he  viewed  it  in 
connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  the  spirit  of  fellow¬ 
ship  ;  see  his  Christliche  Glaubenslehre,  i.,  §  6,  p.  35-40,  §  22,  p.  125  ss.,  ii., 
§  121  ss.,  §  125,  p.  306  ss.  Comp.  Re  Wette ,  Religion  und  Theologie,  p. 
167  ss. ;  Dogmatik,  §  94.  Twesten ,  i.,  p.  107  ss.  Nitzsch ,  p.  306  ss. — The 
adherents  of  the  speculative  philosophy  regard  the  church  “  as  God  existing 
in  the  congregation,”  or,  “  as  the  religious  side  of  the  state.”  But  the  Gnos¬ 
tic  distinction  which  they  make  between  those  who  believe  and  those  who 
know,  would  naturally  prevent  them  from  forming  any  just  idea  of  the 
church.  See  Hegel ,  Philosophie  der  Religion,  ii.,  p.  257  ss.  Marheineke , 
Dogmatik,  p.  320  ss.  Strauss  (Dogmatik,  ii.,  p.  616)  further  explains  the 
Hegelian  view,  as  implying  that  philosophers  should  not  be  compelled  to 
belong  to  any  particular  church,  but  thinks  it  very  strange,  that  separa¬ 
tion  from  church-fellowship  should  be  the  result  of  a  philosophical  examina¬ 
tion.  Comp.  Biedermann ,  Die  freie  Theologie,  p.  201  sq. — More  recent 
doctrinal  statements  concerning  the  church,  see  in  Lange,  Dogmatik,  ii. 
1081  sq. — According  to  him  the  church  “is  the  planting  and  development 
of  the  salvation  and  life  of  Christ  in  the  social  sphere,”  and  “  the  typical  com¬ 
mencement  of  the  world’s  transfiguration.”  On  the  polarity  of  the  church, 
as  coetus  Sanctorum,  and  mater  fidelium,  see  Ebrard,  404  sq. ;  on  its  com¬ 
pletion  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  ibid.,  730  sq.  [Separatism  views  the 
church  only  as  the  coetus  Sanctorum  ;  its  historical  continuity  is  found  in  it 
as  the  mater  fidelium. — The  completion  of  the  church  will  consist  in  the  ex¬ 
clusion  from  it  of  all  the  wordly  elements  that  remain,  which  can  only  be  by 
a  crisis.  Ebrard,  ubi  supra.] — “  The  Protestant  church  is  a  developing,  but 
not  a  fully  developed  church  ;  it  is  the  church  of  the  future .”  Schenkel , 
Protestantismus,  iii.  202  sq. 

7  This  independence  of  the  church  in  relation  to  the  state  is  connected 
with  the  independence  of  the  citizens  in  relation  to  the  church,  and  to  eccle¬ 
siastical  institutions,  and  with  the  liberty  of  worship.  Comp.  Vinet ,  Memoire 
en  Faveur  de  la  Liberte  des  Cultes,  Paris,  1826  (comp.  Hagenbach,  in  the 
Studien  und  Kritiken,  1829,  2d  part,  p.  418). — On  the  Scotch  National 
Church,  and  the  disturbances  in  the  Canton  de  Yaud,  see  Niedner,  Kirchen- 
geschichte,  886.  [Comte  Agenor  de  Gasparin ,  Interets  generaux  du  Pro- 
testantisme  Francais,  Paris,  1843. — On  the  Scotch  Church,  see  §  285,  c.] 

8  R.  Rothe,  die  Anfange  der  Christlichen  Kirche  und  ihrer  Verfassung. 
2  vol.,  Wittenb.,  1837-45,  Ethik,  ii.  89  sq.,  145  sq. :  “As  long  as  the  single  na¬ 
tional  state  has  not  completed  its  development  as  a  state,  the  extent  of  the  ethical 
communion  of  the  people  is  not  yet  completely  embraced  in  their  religious 
fellowship ;  that  is,  the  political  body  (the  State)  does  not  include  and  swab 


512 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


low  up  tlie  religious  comrauuions.  In  such  a  state  of  things  there  must  of 
course  be  a  church  alongside  of  the  state.  Hut  the  church  as  a  distinct  body , 
must  also  recede  and  be  dissolved,  just  in  proportion  as  the  state  approximates 
to  the  perfection  of  its  development .”  [Comp.  Gladstone,  on  Church  and 
State  :  and  §  285,  b,  p.  246.  H.  W.  Wilberforce,  Hist,  of  Erastianism, 
1851.  R.  J.  'Wilberforce,  Inquiry  into  Principles  of  Church  Authority, 
Balt,  ed.,  1855.  Pusey  on  Royal  Supremacy,  1849.  J.  R.  Pretyman , 
Church  of  England  and  Erastianism,  1854.  Among  English  writers,  Cole¬ 
ridge  and  Arnold  approximate  to  the  views  of  Eothe.]  < 

9  F.  J.  Stahl,  die  Kirchenverfassung  nach  Lehre  und  Recht  der  Protes- 
tanten,  Erl.,  1840.  (Second  Appendix.) 

10  See  the  statements  of  the  Oxford  divines  in  the  work  of  Weaver- Amtlior , 
p.  16  sq.  Hook,  Sermons  on  the  Church  Establishment :  “  The  only  office 
to  which  the  Lord  has  pledged  his  presence  is  that  of  the  bishops,  the  suc¬ 
cessors  of  the  first  commissioned  Apostles,  and  to  the  rest  of  the  clergy,  so 
far  as  they  are  sanctioned  by  the  bishops  and  act  under  their  authority.” 
Keble  and  Newman ,  in  the  Evangelical  Magazine,  p.  68  :  “The  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  preserved  to  the  world  only  by  the  episcopal  succession  ;  and 
to  strive  for  communion  with  Christ  by  any  other  channel  is  to  attempt  what 
is  impossible.”  [On  the  Oxford  School,  see  above,  pp.  423,  426.] 

11  They  call  themselves  the  Catholic  ^Apostolic  Church.  Their  offices  are 
those  of  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  shepherds  and  teachers.  See  Narra¬ 
tive  of  Events,  affecting  the  Position  and  Prospects  of  the  whole  Christian 
Church,  Lond.,  1847.  W.  H.  Darby ,  The  Irvingites — in  German  by  Poseck, 
Berl.,  1850.  A  short  sketch  by  Stockmeier,  Irvingismus,  Basel,  1850.  [See 
above,  §  285,  note  6,  p.  414.] 

12  Lohe,  Ivirche  und  Amt.,  Erlangen,  1851.  Munchmeier,  Sichtbare  und 
unsichtbare  Kirche,  1855.  Kliefoth ,  Acht  Bucher  von  der  Kirche,  Schwe¬ 
rin,  1854.  Harless,  Kirche  und  Amt.,  Stuttg.,  1853.  C.  Lechler,  Neutest. 
Lehre  vom  heiligen  Amte,  Stuttg.,  1857.  W.  Preger ,  Die  Geschichte  vom 
geistlichen  Amte,  auf  Grand  der  Rechtfertigungslehre,  Nordling.,  1857.  See 
Palmer's  article,  Geistliche,  in  Herzog’s  Realencyclop.  [Delitzsch,  Vier 
Bucher  von  d.  Kirche,  1847.  Julius  Muller,  Die  unsichtbare  Kirche,  in 
Deutsche  Zeitschrift,  1851.  Hodge,  in  Princeton  Review,  1853.] 

Several  questions  of  a  more  practical  nature,  e.  g.  those  concerning  the  rights  of  princes 
in  matters  of  worship,  the  constitution  of  Synods,  the  presbyterian  form  of  church  govern¬ 
ment,  the  obligation  of  ministers  to  sign  the  symbolical  books  of  the  church  to  which  they 
belong,  the  relation  of  the  various  denominations  to  each  other,  etc.,  have  frequently 
been  discussed  in  modern  times.  See  the  acts  of  the  General  Synod,  held  at  Berlin, 
1846  :  the  18th  and  following  sessions. 

In  the  Roman  Catholic  church  a  controversy  was  carried  on  between  the  Curialists  and 
Episcopalians.  Jansenism  made  its  appearance  in  Germany  as  Febronianism  (see  Klee, 
Dogmengeschichte,  i.,  p.  99).  The  French  Revolution  seemed  to  have  annihilated  the 
existence  of  the  Church ;  but  it  rose  again  with  new  vigor.  Concerning  its  further  devel¬ 
opment  and  the  various  politico-ecclesiastical  systems,  see  the  works  on  ecclesiastical  his* 
tory  and  Canon  Law.  Respecting  the  conflicts  to  which  the  subject  of  mixed  marriages, 
etc.,  gave  rise,  see  ibid.  ^ 


§  303.  The  Sacraments. 


513 


§  303. 

THE  MEANS  OF  GRACE  *  THE  SACRAMENTS. 

Protestants  continue  to  hold  the  doctrine  of  two  sacraments1 — 
viz.  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  denominational  differ¬ 
ences  between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Calvinists,  to  which  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  had  given  rise,  were  still  in  existence  at 
the  commencement  of  the  present  period.3  But  the  position  of  the 
Socinians,  that  the  sacraments  are  mere  ceremonies,  being  in  better 
accordance  with  the  tendency  of  rationalism,3  the  Lutheran  theolo¬ 
gians  gradually  abandoned  their  former  rigid  views,4  so  that,  at  last, 
the  denominational  differences  were  lost  sight  of,  in  consequence  of 
the  wider  spread  of  indifferentism.  Those  only  who  had  retained 
some  idea  of  grace,  continued  to  attach  importance  to  the  means  of 
grace?  The  rationalists  adopted  in  the  main,  the  theory  of  Zwin- 
gle.6  Calvinism  was  more  fully  developed  by  the  adherents  of  a 
mediating  theology  in  particular,  and  served  as  the  basis  of  the 
ecclesiastical  union.7  The  old  Lutheran  view,  however,  was  also  re¬ 
vived  in  its  most  rigid  form,  and  adopted  by  many  ;8  this  was  still 
more  the  case  as  modern  philosophers  interpreted  it  speculatively.® 
Anabaptist  views  concerning  baptism  have  given  rise  to  controver¬ 
sies  in  our  own  day.10  Inasmuch  as  the  more  unprejudiced  of  the 
Protestant  theologians  gradually  admitted  that  infant  baptism  was 
not  expressly  commanded  in  Scripture,  Schleiermacher  and  his  fol¬ 
lowers  endeavored  to  defend  the  ecclesiastical  usage,  by  regarding 
the  act  of  confirmation  as  a  complement  of  that  of  baptism.11  The 
strict  Lutherans  still  hold  to  the  objective  significancy  of  the  sacra¬ 
ment  of  baptism  in  its  full  extent.12  The  Puseyites  make  the  con¬ 
nection  between  spiritual  regeneration  and  water  baptism  to  be 
essential.13 

1  Augusti  gave  the  preference  to  the  threefold  division  into  baptism,  the 
Lord’s  Suppler,  and  absolution,  which  he  compared  (an  anti-climax)  to  the 
Trinity — (viz.  baptism  is  the  sacrament  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Lord’s  Supper 
is  that  of  the  Son,  and  absolution  is  that  of  the  Father  as  the  supreme  judge). 
See  his  System  der  christlichen  Dogmatik,  2d  edit.,  p.  278-281,  Preface,  p. 
6;  and  his  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte,  p.  382.  Karrer  agreed  with 
him  ( Bertholt's  Kritisches  Journal,  xii).  Ammon  (Summa  Doctrinae,  edit, 
iii.,  p.  251)  would  like  to  number,  if  it  were  suitable,  the  redditio  animae  in 
manus  Domini,  among  the  sacraments ;  and  Kaiser  (Monogrammata,  p. 
224)  held  that  confirmation  and  the  laying  on  of  hands  are  sacraments  (see 
Augusti ,  Dogmengeschichte,  1.  c.). — Gothe,  from  the  aesthetic  point  of  view, 


*  On  the  Word  of  God,  see  above,  §  291. 


514 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


defended  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  seven  sacraments  (in  his  Aus  mei- 
nem  Leben,  ii.,  p.  117  ss.,  Stuttg.,  1829). — The  Moravian  brethren  have 
introduced  among  themselves  the  ecclesiastical  usages  of  the  washing  of  feet, 
the  kiss  of  charity,  and  the  casting  of  lots,  without  regarding  them  as  sacra¬ 
ments  ;  they  attach,  however,  great  importance  to  the  first  of  these  ;  see  Idea 
Fidei  Fratrum,  p.  548  ss.  In  addition  to  the  Lord’s  Supper,  they  also  cele¬ 
brate  the  love-feasts. — As  regards  the  idea  of  sacrament,  several  theologians 
took  the  ground  that  the  term  sacrament  is  not  very  judiciously  chosen.  See 
Storr ,  Doctrina  Christiana,  §  108  ss.  Reinhard ,  p.  556  :  “It  would  have 
been  better,  either  not  to  introduce  into  systematic  theology  the  term  sacra¬ 
ment,  which  is  used  in  so  many  senses,  and  does  not  once  occur  in  Holy 
Writ,  or  to  use  it  in  the  free  and  indefinite  manner  of  the  earlier  church.” 
Comp.  Schleiermacher ,  Christliche  Glaubenslehre,  vol.  ii.,  p.  415  ss.  p.  416: 
“  The  common  mode  of  commencing  with  this  so  called  general  idea,  and 
explaining  it,  serves  to  confirm  the  erroneous  opinion,  that  it  is  a  proper  doc¬ 
trinal  idea,  involving  something  essential  to  Christianity,  and  that  baptism 
and  the  Lord’s  Supper  are  of  so  much  importance  principally  because  this 
idea  is  therein  realized.” — The  Idea  Fidei  Fratrum  treats  only  of  baptism  and 
the  Lord’s  Supper,  wuthout  discussing  the  idea  of  sacrament,  p.  275  ss.  See 
on  the  other  side,  Hase ,  Dogmatik,  p.  529,  and  Schenkel  (Protestantismus,  i. 
393  sq.),  who  gives  prominence  in  express  terms  to  the  objective  idea  of 
sacrament. — Martensen  (Dogmatik,  470)  says  that  “the  sacred  pledges  of 
the  new  covenant  contain  an  actual  bestowal  of  the  nature  and  life  of  the 
risen  Christ,  who  does  not  merely  give  redemption  and  completion  to  the 
spiritual,  but  also  to  the  corporeal.”  Ebrard ,  ii.  1,  distinguishes  the  “  Word 
of  God,”  as  a  means  of  grace  from  the  sacraments,  in  such  a  way  as  to  make 
the  former  the  instrumental  cause  of  the  converting  (metanoetic)  agency  of 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  the  sacraments,  on  the  other  hand,  to  be  means  of 
grace  for  the  objective,  regenerating  ( avayevvav )  energy  of  the  same  spirit, 
considered  as  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  . 

2  In  the  year  1714,  L.  Clu  Sturm,  former  professor  of  mathematics  in  the 
university  of  Frankfort,  who  had  seceded  from  the  Lutheran  to  the  Reformed 
Church,  published  his  Mathematische  Beweis  vom  Abendmahle,  in  which  he 
(like  Schwenkfeld,  §  259,  note  15),  confounded  the  subject  and  the  predicate 
of  the  words  used  by  our  Lord,  by  explaining,  rovro  as  equivalent  to  tolovto. 
He  was  opposed  by  J.  A.  Fabricius ,  J.  G.  Reinbeck,  F.  Buddeus,  and  others. 
About  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Ch.  August  Heumans*  himself 
a  Lutheran,  dared  to  prove,  “  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church  con¬ 
cerning  the  Lord’s  Supper  is  correct  and  true.”  His  work  did  not  so  much 
lead  Calvinists  to  engage  in  a  controversy,  as  gave  rise  to  dissensions  among 
the  Lutheran  theologians  themselves.  See  Schlegel,  Kirchengeschichte  des 
18  Jahrhunderts,  ii.,  p.  307  ss.  Von  Einem,  p.  325  ss. 

8  The  writings  of  rationalists  abounded  in  trivial  matters  even  on  litur¬ 
gical  points.  Thus  K.  R.  Lange  proposed  (in  Hufnagel’s  liturgische  Blat- 

*  He  held  this  view  quietly  as  early  as  1740,  and  avowed  it,  1754,  in  his  explanation 
of  the  New  Testament  (on  1  Cor.,  xi.  24);  but  it  was  even  then  suppressed  before  the 
publication  of  the  work.  He  next  wrote  the  above  essay  in  1762,  which  was  not  pub¬ 
lished,  however,  till  after  his  death,  1764. 


303.  The  Sacraments. 


515 


tern,  vol.  i.)  the  following  formula  for  use  at  the  administration  of  th« 
Lord’s  Supper :  “  Partake  of  this  bread  !  may  the  spirit  of  devotion  bestow 
all  his  blessings  upon  you.  Partake  of  a  little  wine  !  Virtuous  power  is  not 
in  this  wine,  it  is  in  you,  in  the  divine  doctrine,  and  in  God.”  See  Kapp , 
Liturgische  Grundsatze,  Erl.,  1831,  p.  349. 

4  Ernesti  defended  the  Lutheran  interpretation  of  the  words  used  by  our 
Lord  on  exegetical  grounds  (Opuscula  Theologica,  p.  135  ss.),  but  expressed 
his  sorrow  that  many  were  more  inclined  to  adopt  that  view,  quae  rationi  hu- 
manse  expeditior  est  et  mollior.  The  supernaturalists  Storr  and  Reinhardt, 
were  satisfied  with  a  more  indefinite  statement  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
[Storr,  Doctrina  Christiana,  §  114  ;  Reinhardt ,  p.  588).  Knapp  went  so  far 
as  to  say  (vol.  ii.,  p.  482)  :  “  The  doctrine  of  Christ’s  presence  in  the  Lord’s 
Supper  should  never  have  been  made  an  article  of  faith,  but  have  been  con¬ 
fined  to  the  theological  problems.”  Others,  e.  g.  Hahn.  Lindner ,  and 
Schwarz ,  endeavored  to  help  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  by  introducing  their 
own  explanations.  See  Ease,  Dogmatik,  p.  583. 

6  The  Pietists  and  Moravian  Brethren,  retained  the  most  firmly  the  idea 
of  means  of  grace.  The  mystics  gave  prominence  to  the  specific  dynamic 
efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  and  hesitated,  in  respect  to  the  Lord’s  Supper,  to 
interpret  the  words  of  institution  in  a  purely  tropical  sense.  Thus  Oetinger 
(Theologie,  345) :  “We  must  be  very  cautious  about  perverting  any  word  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  so  as  to  make  of  it  a  merely  metaphorical  figure  of  speech. 
The  fulness  of  the  spirit  is  attenuated  by  thin  and  lean  interpretations.  A 
man  with  a  good,  sound  heart  feels  more  than  can  be  expressed  in  words ; 
and  so  we  must  let  the  words  stand  in  all  their  fulness.”  See  also  his  Lehr- 
tafel  (in  Auberlen,  408)  :  “As  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwells  in  Christ, 
bodily,  it  also  imparts  itself  bodily  to  the  water,  blood  and  spirit,  in  baptism 
and  the  supper.  For  regeneration  comes  of  spirit  and  water,  both  in  crea- 
turely  wise;  Spirit  is  the  causa  materialis ,  not  efficiens , — despite  the  scandal 
of  philosophers  about  materialism.”  Ibid.,  373  (in  Auberlen ,  409) :  “  Water 
and  blood  are  penetrated  with  the  fire  of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  Evangel,  i.  280 
sq.  (in  Auberlen ,  436) :  “As  it  is  by  the  invisible,  everywhere  diffused  essence 
and  substance  of  Christ,  that  the  equally  invisible  power  of  the  bread  and 
the  wine  is  made  to  nourish  all  men,  although  they  be  merely  earthly  men— 
so  too  must  the  new,  unseen,  inward  man  be  nurtured  and  preserved  by  this 
self-same,  everywhere  present,  substance  and  essence  of  Christ.  We  all  have 
body  and  soul.  The  spirit  from  Christ’s  body  offers  himself  daily  to  all, 
that  they  may  receive  him  into  the  essence  of  their  body  and  soul,  and^rans- 
form  their  mortal  nature.  The  angels — they  eat  the  bread  of  angels.  The 
Israelites  in  the  wilderness  ate  the  manna  ignorantly ;  but  Christ  gives  clear 
and  full  understanding  (John  vi).”  On  Oetinger’s  positive  relation  to  the 
Lutheran,  and  negative  relation  to  the  Reformed  and  Roman  Catholic  doc¬ 
trine,  see  Auberlen ,  325,  336,  413,  426-28.  On  his  position  as  to  the  early 
church,  see  p.  442  sq. 

5  The  rationalists  differed  among  themselves.  The  strict  Lutheran  doc¬ 
trine  was,  of  course,  excluded.  Mauy  adopted  what  we  may  call  the  inter¬ 
mediate  view  of  Zwingle  ;  others  fell  down  into  the  Socinian  theory  and  even 
lower,  while  some  rose  up  as  high  as  the  Calvinistic  scheme.  Benjamin 


516 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Hoadly,  of  the  Anglican  Church,  a  friend  of  the  Arian,  Samuel  Clarke,  defended 
the  Socinian  theory  in  his  treatise  :  Of  the  Nature  and  End  of  the  Sacra¬ 
ment  of  the  Lord’s  Supper.  Lond.,  1735.  He  was  combated  by  Whiston , 
Waterland  and  Mill,  defending  the  doctrine  of  the  39  Articles.  See  Schle - 
gel ,  1.  c.  Von  Einem ,  ii.,  p.  536,  ii.  2,  p.  751. — Henlce  followed  Schwenkfeld 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  words  used  by  our  Lord,  Lineamenta,  cxxxvii., 
p.  250. — TieftrunTc  adopted  the  view  of  Kant,  that  the  design  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper  is  to  awaken  and  develope  a  spirit  of  cosmopolitan  brotherhood  ;  see 
his  Censur,  p.  296  ss.  (comp.  Kant,  Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen  der  blos- 
sen  Vernunft,  p.  282).  The  better  class  of  German  rationalists  explained  the 
ordinance  in  its  memorial  and  symbolical  significance,  in  a  becoming  spirit, 
insisting  on  its  profound  moral  import,  and  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of 
Zwingle.  See  especially  D.  Schulz ,  Die  Lehre  vom  Abendmahl ;  and  com¬ 
pare  Wegscheider,  §  180,  a.  He  regards  the  elements  used  in  the  Lord’s 
Supper  not  merely  as  signa  significantia,  but  as  signa  exhibitiva ;  and  thus 
approximates  to  the  Calvinistic  view. 

7  Schleiermacher ,  Christliche  Glaubenslehre,  ii.,  p.  139  ss.,  p.  388  ss.  JDe 
Wette ,  Dogmatik,  p.  93.  JVitzsch,  System  der  christlichen  Lehre,  p.  317. 
Ebrard ,  Das  Dogma  von  heiligen  Abendmahl,  Bd.  ii.,  785  sq. ;  and  his  Dog¬ 
matik,  631  sq.  Compare  the  article  o i  Julius  Muller  in  Herzog’s  Realency- 
clop.  i.  21  sq.  [See  also  the  works  referred  to  §  258,  p.  308.] 

8  Scheibel ,  das  Abendmahl  des  Herrn,  Breslau,  1823.  Sartorius ,  Verthei- 
digung  der  lutherischen  Abendmahlslehre,  in  the  Dorpat  Beitrage,  1832,  vol. 
i,  p.  305  ss.  Th.  Schwarz ,  Ueber  das  Wesen  des  heiligen  Abendmahls  (in 
Ebrard ,  p.  874).  The  innumerable  recent  controversial  writings  (by  Kahnis , 
Rudelbach,  Rodaz ,  Strobel ),  we  cannot  here  individually  cite.  The  Luther¬ 
an  view  is  most  comprehensively  presented  in  Kahnis ,  Die  Lehre  vom  Abend¬ 
mahl,  Leipz.,  1851  (against  Ebrard).  See  also  RucJcert ,  Das  Abendmahl, 
1856,  and  Baur,  in  Theol.  Jahrb.,  1857. 

9  Hegel ,  Philosophie  der  Religion,  vol.  ii.,  p.  274  :  “The  idea  involved  in 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  is  this,  that  the  motion  begins  with  the  external  (ele¬ 
ment),  which  is  a  plain  and  common  thing,  but  that  the  participation,  the 
consciousness  of  the  presence  of  God,  is  brought  about  so  far  forth  as  the 
external  element  is  consumed  not  merely  corporeally,  but  in  spirit  and  in 
faith.  God  is  present  only  in  spirit  and  faith. . . .  Here  is  no  transubstantia- 
tion  in  the  common  sense  of  the  word,  but  yet  a  transubstantiation,  by  which 
the  external  is  abolished,  and  the  presence  of  God  is  purely  spiritual,  so  that' 
the  faith  of  the  participant  is  essential.”  (The  last  idea  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  Lutheran  view;  comp.  §  259,  note  10.) 

10  The  Anabaptists  in  Switzerland. — Oncken  in  Hamburgh  (from  the  year 
1834). — The  Anabaptists  in  Wirtemberg  (from  the  year  1787)  :  see  Grunei - 
sen ,  Abriss  einer  Geschichte  der  religiosen  Gemeinschaften  in  Wurtemburg, 
mit  besonderer  Rilcksicht  auf  die  neuen  Taufgesinnten,  in  Illgens  Zeitschrift 
fur  historische  Theologie,  1841,  part,  i.,  p.  64  ss.  [See  §  285,  b,  note  23  ; 

§  285,  e,  note  19.] 

11  Schleiermacher ,  Christliche  Glaubenslehre,  ii.,  §  138,  p.  382  ss. 

12  W.  Hofmann ,  Tauf  uud  Wiedertaufe,  Stuttg.,  1843.  Martensen ,  Die 
christliche  Taufe  und  die  baptistische  Frage,  Hamburg,  1843  [1859];  sea 


§  304.  Eschatology. 


517 


also  his  Dogmatik,  p.  398.  Ho  fling,  Das  Sacrament  der  Taufe,  Erlangen, 
1846.  Bd.  i.  28  :  “The  chief  point  is,  and  remains,  this — that  we  recognize 
the  grace  of  God,  the  Spirit  of  God,  God  himself,  as  working  with  us  in,  with 
and  under  the  water  of  the  baptism,  so  that  by  means  of  this  act,  we  receive 
regeneration,  an  actual  reception  and  transition  into  the  saving  and  life-giving 
fellowship  with  Christ,  justification  and  the  blessed  life.”  Compare  the  acts 
of  the  Frankfort  Church  Diet,  1854. 

13  Pusey  on  Holy  Baptism;  in  the  work  of  Weaver- Amthor,  p.  22  sq. 
[See  also,  above,  p.  308,  426,  427.] 


§  304. 

ESCHATOLOGY. 

Flugge ,  Geschichte  des  Glaubens  an  Unsterblichkeit,  Auferstehung,  Gericht  und  Yergel- 
tung,  Leipz.,  1794-1800.  Weisse  Die  philos.  Bedentung  der  Lehre  von  den  letzten 
Dingen  (Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1836).  Kling,  on  Eschatology  in  Herzog’s  Realencyclop. 
iv.  136  sq.  [/.  H.  Fichte ,  Idee  der  Personlichkeit  und  d.  individuellen  Fortdaner, 
2te.  Aufl,  1855.  Abp.  Whately ,  Revelations  of  a  Future  State,  1855.  Alger,  Belief 
in  Immortality  ;  see  Christ.  Examiner,  1861.] 

The  decline  of  church  life  during  the  period  of  rationalism  ap¬ 
peared  to  the  more  religious  to  portend  a  defection  from  pure  Chris¬ 
tianity  ;  and  in  proportion  to  the  clearness  of,  such  indications,  the 
higher  were  their  expectations  as  to  the  near  approach  of  the  end 
of  all  things.  Bengel /  and  Jung  Stilling ,2  endeavored  to  ascertain 
the  exact  period  when  this  event  would  take  place.  The  former 
fixed  upon  the  year  1836.  In  opposition  to  these  positive  expecta¬ 
tions,  the  rationalists  sought  to  explain  away  the  Scriptural  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  second  advent  of  Christ,3  and  to  limit  the  duration  of 
the  punishments  of  hell.4  Earlier  hypotheses,  e .  g.  concerning  the 
sleep  of  the  soul,  the  migration  of  souls,  Hades,  etc.,  were  also  re¬ 
vived  and  their  number  increased  by  new  ones.5  Nevertheless  both 
rationalists  and  supernaturalists  retained  the  hope  of  man's  perso¬ 
nal  existence  after  death  ;  not  only  those  who  believed  in  a  revela¬ 
tion,  such  as  Lavater,  but  also  the  leaders  of  rationalism  looked 
hopefully  into  the  world  to  come.6  Kant  examined  the  arguments 
commonly  advanced  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  immortality  (as 
he  had  done  in  reference  to  the  existence  of  God),  and  approved 
only  of  the  moral  argument  (for  the  practical  reason).7  In  opposi¬ 
tion  to  that  form  of  belief  in  immortality  which  had  lost  its  Chris¬ 
tian  basis,  and  had  its  real  origin  in  selfish  motives,  the  modern 
philosophy  and  theology  justly  insisted  upon  that  idea  of  eternal  life 
which  as  Christ  himself  taught  was  to  begin  upon  earth.8  But  this 
idea  in  connection  with  the  free  concession,  that  we  could  form  no 
definite  conception  of  the  future,9  led  some  of  the  disciples  of  modern 


518 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


speculation  to  a  total  denial  of  the  world  to  come,  and  a  deification 
of  the  present  life  :10  while  others  endeavored  more  fully  to  fortify 
the  church  doctrine  about  the  last  things  by  means  of  the  same 
philosophy.11  The  prophetical  parts  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes¬ 
tament  were  also  investigated  anew  in  view  of  their  didactic  con¬ 
tents  ;  what  was  veiled  in  vision  and  image  was  applied  to  the 
confirmation  of  a  theosophic  and  apocalyptic  eschatology.12  That 
the  kingdom  of  God,  which  has  its  commencement  and  completion 
in  Jesus  Christ,  the  only-begotten  son  of  God,  is  ever  approaching  ; 
that  the  idea  of  a  glorified  union  of  the  human  with  the  Divine, 
"by  means  of  a  living  faith  in  Christ,  in  relation  to  the  whole  as  well 
as  to  individuals,  will  be  more  and  more  realised  in  the  fulness  of 
time  ;  and  that  noth  withstanding  the  manifold  change  of  forms,  the 
spirit  of  Christianity  will  always  be  the  incorruptible  inheritance  of 
humanity — these  are  hopes  reaching  far  beyond  a  sensuous  millenna- 
rianism,  and  which  we  are  justified  in  cherishing  by  the  considera¬ 
tion  of  the  course,  which,  amidst  numerous  conflicts  and  errors,  the 
development  of  Christian  theology  has  taken  to  the  present  hour. 

1  In  his  Erklarte  Offenb.  Joh.  oder  vielmehr  Jesu  Christi,  aus  clem  Grund- 
text  tibersetzt,  durch  die  prophetischen  Zaklen  aufgeschlossen,  und  Allen,  die 
auf  das  Werk  und  Wort  des  Herrn  achten,  und  dem,  was  vor  der  Thiire  ist, 
wurdiglich  entgegen  zu  kommen  begehren,  vor  Augen  gelegt  durch  Joh. 
Albr.  JBengel,  Stuttg.,  1740. — Sechzig  erbauliche  Reden  liber  die  Offenb. 
Job.,  sammt  einer  Nachlese  gleichen  Inhalts,  etc.,  1747. — Cyclus,  sive  de 
anno  magno  solis,  lunae,  stellarum  consideratio  ad  incrementum  doctrinae 
propheticae  atque  astronomicae  accomodata,  Ulm.,  1745.  For  the  controver¬ 
sial  writings  to  which  his  works  gave  rise,  see  Hurk's  Life  of  Bengel,  p.  260, 
and  the  chronological  table,  p.  273.  Comp.  Lucke ,  Einleitung  in  die  Offen- 
barung  Johannis,  p.  548  ss.  [Stuart,  Commentary  on  the  Apocalypse,  i.,  p. 
469.]  Oetinger  looked  into  the  future  in  the  spirit  of  Bengel  (see  Auberlen , 
p.  516  sq.)*.  Magnus  Freidrich  Boos,  Auslegung  der  Weissagungen  Dan¬ 
iels,  1771 ;  see  the  Appendix  to  Auberlin’s  work  on  Daniel  [transl.  Edinb. 
1859].  John  Michael  Hahn  and  others. 

3  In  his  Siegesgeschichte  der  christlichen  Kirche,  oder  gemeinntitzige 
Erklarung  der  Offenbarung  Johannis,  Ntirnb.,  1779.  Appendix,  1805, 
1822.  A.  F.  v.  Meyer  on  Sheol,  etc.,  followed  Stilling. 

3  Henke ,  Lineamenta,  cxiv. :  Atqui  his  in  oraculis  (Scripturae  S.)  non 
omnia,  ut  sonant,  verba  capienda  ;  multa  ad  similitudinem  formae  judiciorum 
humanorum  et  pompae  regiae  expressa  esse  illi  etiam  fatentur,  qui  adspectabile 
aliquod  judicium,  a  Christo  ipso  per  sensibilem  speciem  praesenti  in  his  terris 
agendum,  praefiguratum  esse  atque  praestituto  tempore  vere  actum  iri  defen- 
dunt.  Interim  vel  sic,  districtis  quasi  exuviis  orationis,  remanent  multa,  quae 
non  modo  obscuritatis,  sed  etiam  offensionis  plurimum  habent,  etc. . .  .Insunt 
vero  istis  rerum,  quas  futuras  esse  praedixerunt,  imaginibus  hae  simul  graves 
et  piae  sententiae:  1.  vitam  hominibus  post  fata  instauratum  iri,  eosque  etsi 
eosdem,  non  tamen  eodem  modo  victuros  esse ;  2.  sortem  cujusque  in  ha* 


304.  Eschatology. 


519 


vita  continuita  talem  futuram,  qualem  e  sententia  Christi,  h.  e.  ad  veritatis 
et  justitiae  amussim,  promeruerit ;  3.  plane  novam  fore  rerum  faciem  in  is- 
thac  altera  vita,  et  longe  alias  novae  civitatis  sedes  ;  4.  anirao  semper  bene 
composite  et  pervigilanti,  magnam  illam  rerum  nostrarum  conversionem,  ne 
inopinatos  oprimat,  expectandam  esse.  Comp.  Wegscheider ,  Institute,  §  199, 
200.  Herder  (Yon  der  Auferstehung),  and  De  Wette  (Religion  und  Tlieo- 
logie,  p.  259  ss.),  and  endeavored  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  symbols 
and  that  which  is  signified  by  them.  [Millennarian  views  have  been  revived 
in  Germany  by  Delitzsch ,  Hofmann ,  Auberlen ,  and  Floerlce.  See  W.  Floe-rice , 
Die  Lehre  vom  tausendjiihrigen  Reiche,  Marburg,  1859:  comp.  Zeitschrift 
f.  lutherische  Theologie,  1861,  p.  558  sq.  ;  and  Kohler  in  the  same  period¬ 
ical  on  Schriftwidrigkeit  des  Chiliasmus,  1861,  pp.  412-475.  J.  N.  Schnei¬ 
der,  Die  Chiliastiche  Doctrin,  Schafhausen,  1859. — -In  England  the  Quarterly 
Journal  of  Prophecy,  1849  sq.,  and  in  the  United  States,  Lord’s  Theol.  and 
Lit.  Review,  advocate  the  millennarian  expectations ;  compare  Princeton  Re¬ 
view  on  Modern  Millennarianism,  1852,  1853.  Camming,  Elliott,  Hirics and 
Keith  in  England,  advocate,  with  more  or  less  exactitude  of  dates,  the  Second 
Coming.  See  also  G.  S.  Faber,  Sacred  Calendar  of  Prophecy,  3,  1828  sq.; 
Fullfilled  Prophecies,  etc.,  5th  ed.,  3  vols.,  1818.  Prof.  S.  Lee,  Study  of 
Holy  Script,  (in  part  millennial),  1830.  D.  Brown,  Christ’s  Second  Coming, 
1851  ;  W.  Wood  and  H.  JBonar  (in  reply),  Coming  and  Kingdom  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Alpheus  Crosby,  The  Second  Advent,  Bost.,  1850. 
J.  F.  Berg ,  the  Second  Advent  not  premillennial,  Phil.,  1859.  Geo.  JDuffield , 
Dissertation  on  the  Prophecies  of  the  Second  Coming,  New  York,  1842. 
Nathan  Lord,  on  the  Millennium,  Hanover,  1854.  S.  Waldegrave,  New 
Test.  Millennarianism  (Bampton  Lectures),  Lond.,  1854. — On  the  Adventists, 
Millerites ,  m  the  United  States  (end  of  world  in  1843),  see  above,  p.  451.] 

4  Some  supernaturalists  also  propounded  milder  views.  On  the  contrary, 
others  defended  the  eternity  of  punishment. — Kant  numbered  such  queries 
among  those  childish  questions  from  which  the  inquirer  could  learn  nothing, 
even  were  they  answered  (Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen  der  blossen  Yer- 
nunft,  p.  83,  note).  The  literature  is  given  by  Hretschneider,  Entwurf, 
comp.  p.  886  ss.  [For  the  English  literature,  including  universalists,  resto- 
rationists,  annihilationists,  see  above,  p.  451.] 

6  The  Psychopannychy  (sleep  of  souls)  was  advanced  by  John  Heyn,  in  a 
letter  addressed  to  Baumgarten  ;  see  his  Theologische  Streitigkeiten,  iii.,  p. 
454,  and  probably  also  by  J.  J.  Wettstein  (see  Hagenbach,  in  Illgens  Zeit¬ 
schrift  ftir  historische  Theologie,  1839,  i.,  pp.  118,  119)  ;  by  J.  G.  Sulzer 
(Yermischte  Schriften,  1781,  ii.),  and  to  some  extent  by  Reinhard,  Dogma- 
tik,  p.  656  ss.  The  latter  rejects  indeed  the  true  doctrine  of  a  sleep  of  the 
soul,  but  admits  that  the  soul  immediately  after  its  separation  from  the  body 
falls  into  an  unconscious  state,  because  the  change  made  by  death  is  so 
powerful,  that  the  activity  of  the  soul  might  for  a  time  be  interrupted  by  it. 
Comp,  also  Simonetti ,  Gedanken  fiber  die  Lehre  von  der  Unsterblichkeit 
und  dem  Schlaf  der  Seelen,  Berl.  1747. — [ Isaac  Taylor,  Physical  Theory  of 
another  Life,  and  Abp.  Whately  on  the  Future  State,  1855,  advocate  a  con¬ 
dition  of  partial  consciousness  between  death  and  resurrection.]  Concerning 
the  migration  of  souls  (perep^vx^ 7ic)  in  an  ascending  order,  see  S chlosser^ 


520 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


zwei  Gesprache,  Basel,  1781.  Herder ,  Zerstreute  Blatter,  vol.  i.,  p.  215.  F. 
Ehrenberg ,  Wahrheit  und  Dichtung  fiber  unsere  Fortdauer,  Leip.,  1803. 
Conz ,  Schicksale  der  Seelenwanderungshypothese,  Konigsb.,  1791.  ( Bret - 

Schneider ,  Entwurf,  p.  846  ss.).  [North  American  Review,  Jan.,  1855,  on 
Transmigration.] — The  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  state  (Hades)  was  especially- 
advocated  by  Jung  Stilling ,  Geisterkunde,  §  211,  212:  “If  the  departed 
spirit  who  has  left  this  world  in  a  state  of  imperfect  holiness,  carries  along 
some  elements  which  cannot  be  introduced  into  the  heavenly  regions,  he 
must  remain  in  hades  until  he  has  put  away  all  that  is  impure :  but  he  does 
not  suffer  pain,  excepting  that  of  which  he  himself  is  the  cause.  The  true 
sufferings  in  hades  are  a  kind  of  home-sick  longing  for  the  pleasures  of  this 
world  forever  lost.”  Comp,  his  Apologie  der  Geisterkunde,  p.  42-45. — 
Among  modern  theologians,  Hahn  has  adopted  these  views  (christliche  Glau- 
benslehre,  §  142  ;  Hretschneider ,  Entwurf,  p.  886).  Passing  by  the  theory 
of  the  intermediate  state,  Priestley  endeavored  to  reconcile  the  scriptural 
doctrine  of  resurrection  with  the  philosophical  idea  of  immortality,  by  sup¬ 
posing  that  there  is  a  particular  organ  of  the  soul  which  developes  itself  in 
the  hour  of  death  ;  see  British  Magazine,  1773,  vol  iv.,  part  2  ;  JBretschnei - 
der ,  Entwurf,  p.  861. — Swedenborg,  with  peculiar  hypotheses,  developed 
his  Eschatology :  vol.  2,  p.  284.  He  rejected  the  church  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection,  as  founded  upon  a  too  literal  interpretation  of  Scripture.  (Re¬ 
surrection  and  the  general  judgment  have  already  taken  place.)  Men  con¬ 
tinue  to  live  as  men  (the  righteous  as  angels)  after  their  departure  from  this 
world,  and  are  greatly  surprised  to  find  themselves  in  such  a  state.  Imme¬ 
diately  after  death  they  again  have  a  body,  clothes,  houses,  etc.,  and  are 
ashamed  of  the  erroneous  opinions  they  had  formed  concerning  the  future 
life  (comp.  §  297).  Those  who  were  inclined  towards  the  good  and  true 
dwell  in  magnificent  palaces,  surrounded  by  a  paradise  filled  with  trees.  .  .  . 
The  opposite  takes  place  in  the  case  of  those  who  have  indulged  in  sin. 
They  are  either  in  hell  shut  up  in  prisons  without  windows,  in  which  there  is 
light  coming,  as  it  were,  from  an  ignis  fatuus  ;  or  they  live  in  deserts,  and 
reside  in  huts,  surrounded  by  sterile  wastes,  and  haunted  by  serpents,  dragons, 
owls,  and  other  such  objects  corresponding  to  their  evil  inclinations.  Be¬ 
tween  heaven  and  hell  there  is  an  intermediate  place,  called  the  world  of  spir¬ 
its.  Every  man  goes  thither  immediately  after  death  ;  the  intercourse  which 
there  takes  place  between  the  departed  spirits  is  similiar  to  that  which  men 
carry  on  upon  earth,  etc.  Divine  Revelation,  pp.  250,  251.  By  the  new 
heaven  and  the  new  earth  Swedenborg  understood  the  new  church  ;  see 
what  he  says  on  the  Last  Judgment,  in  his  Divine  Revelation. —  Oetinger's 
original  views  on  “The  World  of  the  Invisible,”  are  found  in  his  Tlieologie, 
p.  354  sq. ;  s qq  Auberlen,  pp.  325  sq.,  400  sq.  The  Oxford  Tractarians 
adopted,  with  some  modifications,  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  ;  see  the  work 
of*  Weaver- Amthor,  p.  33  ;  and  Tract  90,  p.  25  sq. 

6  J.  C.  Lavater ,  Aussichten  in  die  Ewigkeit,  in  Letters  to  Zimmermann, 
Ztirick,  1768  ss. — Ch.  F.  Sintenis,  Elpizon,  oder  fiber  meine  Fortdauer  im 
Tode,  Danz.,  1795  ss. — By  the  same;  Oswald  der  Greis ;  mein  letzter 
Glaube,  Leipz.,  1813. — Engel ,  Wir  werden  uns  wiedersehen,  Gott.,  1787,  88. 
The  literature  is  more  fully  given  by  Bretschneider ,  Entwurf,  p.  827,  879  ss. 


§  304.  Eschatology. 


521 


I  The  arguments  commonly  advanced,  especially  in  modern  times,  are  the 
following:  1.  The  metaphysical ,  i.  e.  that  which  is  derived  from  the  nature  of 
the  soul ;  2.  The  teleological ,  i.  e.  that  which  is  derived  from  the  capacities 
of  man  as  not  fully  developed  upon  earth  ;  3.  The  analogical ,  i.  e.  that  which 
is  derived  from  nature — spring,  the  caterpillar,  etc. ;  4.  The  cosmical ,  i.  e. 
the  argument  derived  from  the  starry  world  ;  5.  the  theological ,  i.  e.  the  ar¬ 
gument  founded  on  the  various  attributes  of  God ;  6.  The  moral  (practical), 
i .  e.  the  argument  founded  on  the  disparity  in  the  struggle  for  happiness  and 
that  for  moral  perfection.  See  Kant ,  Kritik  der  Praktischen  Yernunft,  p. 
219  ss.  For  the  literature,  see  Bretschneider ,  1.  c.,  and  Hase ,  Dogmatik,  pp. 
Ill,  112.  Strauss ,  Dogmatik,  ii.,  p.  697  ss.  [Comp.  Bushnell ,  Nature  and 
the  Supernatural,  3d  ed.,  New  York,  1858.  R.  W.  Landis,  The  Immortality 
of  the  Soul,  etc.,  New  York,  1859.  Is  the  Soul  Immortal  ?  New  Englander, 
Aug.,  1853.  T.  M.  Post ,  in  Bibl.  Repos.,  1843  ;  New  Englander,  Feb.  and 
May,  1856.  W.  R.  Alger,  in  Christ.  Examiner,  Jan.,  1856,  Jan.,  1857  ; 
Journal  of  Am.  Unit.  Assoc.,  1858.  Christian  Review,  April,  1861.] 

8  Fichte,  Anweizung  zum  seligen  Leben,  p.  17  :  “  Most  certainly  there  is 
perfect  happiness  also  beyond  the  grave  for  those  who  have  in  this  world  be¬ 
gun  to  enjoy  it,  and  this  is  by  no  means  different  from  that  which  we  may 
here  at  any  time  begin  to  possess.  We  do  not  enter  into  this  state  of  hap¬ 
piness  merely  by  being  buried.  Many  will  seek  happiness  in  the  future  life, 
and  in  the  infinite  series  of  future  worlds,  as  much  in  vain,  as  in  the  present 
life,  if  they  think  it  can  be  found  in  anything  but  that  which  is  now  so  near 
to  them  that  it  can  never  be  brought  nearer — viz.  the  eternal.”  Concerning 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  comp,  ibid.,  p.  178.  Schleiermacher,  Reden 
fiber  die  Religion,  p.  172  (3d  edit.)  says  that  most  men  form  their  idea  of 
immortality  from  irreligious  motives,  inasmuch  as -their  wish  to  be  immortal 
has  its  origin  in  their  aversion  to  that  which  is  the  very  end  and  aim  of  reli¬ 
gion.  [A.  White,  Life  in  Christ :  Immortality  as  the  Privilege  of  the  Regen¬ 
erate.  Lond.,  1846.] 

9  Schleiermacher,  Christliche  Glaubenslehre,  ii.  §  157  ss.  De  Wette,  Dog- 
matik,  §  107,  108. 

10  F.  Richter,  Die  Lehre  von  den  letzten  Dingen,  Bresl.  1833.  By  the 
same  :  Die  Geheimlehren  der  neueren  Philosophic,  nebst  Erklarung  an  Herrn 
Prof.  Weisse  in  Leipzig.,  Ibid.,  1833. — By  the  same  :  Die  neue  Unster- 
blichkeitslehre,  ibid.,  1833.  Strauss,  Glaubenslehre,  ii.  p.  793  :  “  The  idea 
of  a  future  world....  is  the  last  enemy  which  speculative  criticism  has  to 
oppose,  and  if  possible  (!)  to  overcome ”  /  /  The  natural  practical  consequences 
of  this  doctrine  are  seen  in  epicurianism,  Communism,  etc.,  though  the  specu¬ 
lative  philosophy  seeks  to  gaurd  against  these  results. 

II  Ck.  Weisse,  Die  philosophische  Geheimlehre  von  der  Unsterblichkeit 
des  menschlichen  Individuums,  Dresd.,  1834  :  and  also,  Ueber  die  philoso¬ 
phische  Bedeutung  der  Lehre  von  den  letzten  Dingen,  in  the  Theologische 
Studien  und  Kritiken,  1836,  p.  271  ss.  J.  H.  Fichte,  die  Idee  der  Person- 
lichkeit  und  der  individuellen  Fortdauer,  Elberf.,  1834,  1855.  C.  F.  Gos- 
chel,  Yon  den  Beweisen  fur  die  Unsterblichkeit  der  menschlichen  Seele,  im 
Lichte  der  speculativen  Philosophie  ;  eine  Ostergabe,  Berlin,  1835.  Comp. 
Bretschneider,  p.  831.  Franz  Baader  and  others  in  the  same  controversy. — 


522 


Fifth  Period.  The  Age  of  Criticism. 


Theologically,  the  way  has  been  prepared  for  an  entire  revision  of  the 
domain  of  eschatology,  from  the  cosmological  and  anthropological,  as  well 
as  from  the  christological  and  soteriological  points  of  view,  in  the  doc¬ 
trinal  systems  of  J.  P.  Lange ,  ii.  1227  sq. ;  Rolhe ,  Theol.  Ethik,  ii.  156  sq. ; 
Liebner,  Christologie,  i.  1 ;  Martensen ,  424  sq.  (the  completion  of  the  church) ; 
Ebrard ,  Dogmatik,  ii.  710  sq.  (the  macrocosmic  completion  of  all  things). 

12  Auberlen,  Der  Prophet  Daniel,  und  die  Offenbarung  Johannes,  Basel, 
1854  [translated,  Edinb.,  1859]  ;  against  Hengstenberg’s  transposition  of  the 
millennium  into  the  middle  ages — the  so-called  “  church  period.”  M.  Baum - 
garten ,  Die  Nacthgesichte  Sacharia’s,  Braunschweig,  1855. 


INDEX 


Abbadie,  ii.  222. 

Abbot,  Bishop,  ii.  187. 

Abelard,  i.  384,  391 ;  works,  393  ;  on  rea¬ 
son  and  revelation,  416,  417;  tradition, 
422  ;  being  of  God,  436  ;  attributes,  446  ; 
unity,  448 ;  omnipotence,  449,  452  ;  op¬ 
timism,  452;  Trinity,  457,  459;  theodicy, 
473;  on  sin,  ii.  24;  hereditary  sin,  26; 
freedom,  28  ;  christology,  38  ;  the  right 
of  the  devil,  43 ;  redemption,  46,  47  ; 
matrimony,  115. 

Abraham' s  bosom,  ii.  130. 

Absolute ,  philosophy  o£  ii.  399. 

Absolution ,  as  sacrament,  ii.  303,  325,  513. 
AbnlfaradsJi  (Barhebraeus),  i.  385. 

Abuses  of  Roman  Catholic  Church,  ii.  289. 
Acacius  of  Caesarea,  i.  255. 

Acceptilatio,  ii.  356,  360. 

Accidentia  sine  subjecto,  ii.  95. 
Accommodation,  ii.  467. 

Acindynus,  i.  475. 

Acoluthi ,  ii.  115. 

Acominatus ,  i.  385. 

Act  and  testimony,  ii.  444. 

Active  obedience,  ii.  354,  357-8,  362,  497-8. 
Acts  of  councils,  i.  31. 

Actus  personales  (Trinity),  ii.  335. 

Adam's  first  estate,  ii.  251  sq.,  see  Original 
Righteousness,  Innocence. 

Adam's  sin,  i.  292,  297,  299  ;  ii.  22.  See 
Original  Sin,  the  Fall. 

Adam,  Jean,  ii.  246. 

Adam  Kadmon,  i.  116. 

Adams,  Nell.,  ii.  440. 

Adams ,  Thos.  ii.  191. 

Addison,  ii.  383. 

Adelmann ,  Epistle,  ii.  92. 

Adiaphoristic  controversy,  ii.  148. 
Adminicula  gratice,  ii.  303. 

Adopting  act,  ii.  169. 

Adoptionism,  i.  383 ;  ii.  35. 

Ador antes  (Unitarians),  ii.  212. 

Adoratio,  ii.  302. 

Adoration  of  angels,  i,  141 ;  of  saints,  ii. 

301 ;  see  Images ,  Mary,  Saints. 

Adso,  ii.  120. 

Advent,  second,  ii.  124,  370 ;  see  Eschato¬ 
logy. 

Adventists,  ii.  451. 
xEneas  of  Paris,  i.  454. 

FEneas  Silvius,  i.  383,  454. 

FEons,  i.  118,  338. 

FEpinus,  (Hock),  ii.  351,  353. 
uErius,  of  Sebaste,  i.  375. 

FEtius,  i.  255,  256. 

Affediones  Scrip turae,  ii.  245. 


African  School,  i.  386. 

Agatho  of  Rome,  i.  283. 

’A  yevvyaia,  i.  264. 

Agnoetce,  i.  281. 

Agobard,  of  Lyons,  on  Jews,  i.  382,  415; 
works,  387  ;  on  Inspiration,  425. 

Agricola,  John,  ii.,  148,  248. 

Agrippa  of  Nettersheim,  ii.  22,  23. 

Aichard,  see  Eckart. 

kldvLog,  i.  379. 

"A cpeaig,  i.  52. 

Aix-la-  Ghapelle ,  Council,  i.  454. 

Aktistetce,  i.  281. 

Alanus  of  Ryssel  (ab  Insulis),  i.  395,  396 ; 
on  faith,  417 ;  attributes  of  God,  446 ; 
on  the  Trinity,  463 ;  on  atonement,  ii.  49 ; 
on  works,  69;  on  sacraments,  78;  on 
orders,  116. 

Albertus  Magnus,  i.  396,  397  ;  on  knowing 
God,  439  ;  on  Erigena,  442  ;  on  immacu¬ 
late  conception,  ii.  30,  32  ;  christology, 
35,  38:  on  indulgences,  70;  concomi¬ 
tance,  102,  103. 

Albigenses ,  i.  384. 

Albrecht,  ii.  52. 

Alcherus ,  ii.  15. 

Alciat,  ii.  211. 

Alcuin,  i.  387 ;  on  revelation,  422 ;  on  pro¬ 
cession  of  Holy  Ghost,  454 ;  adoptionism, 
ii.  35,  37. 

Alexander ,  see  Natalis  (Noel)  ii.  206. 

Alexander  III.,  ii.  38. 

Alexander  of  Alexandria,  i.  249,  250. 

Alexander  of  Constantinople,  i.  250. 

Alexander  Hales,  i.  396,  397 ;  knowing  God, 
439 ;  on  omnipresence,  446  ;  love  of  God, 
453;  creation,  47 0 ;  theodicy,  473;  devil, 
478  ;  sinlessness  of  Mary,  ii.  31 ;  on  assu¬ 
rance,  ii.  65 ;  on  thesaurus  meritorum, 
69  ;  seven  sacraments,  7  8  •,  confirmation, 
87  ;  Lord’s  Supper,  98  ;  the  cup,  102  ;  on 
concomitance,  103;  penance,  111. 

Alexander ,  Archibald,  J.  A.,  J.  W.,  ii.  445 ; 
W.  L.,  ii.  435. 

Alexander  of  Stourdza,  ii.  459. 

Alexandria,  School  of,  i.  95,  239,  275;  ii. 
375. 

Alexandrian  culture,  i.  50. 

Alford,  ii.  423. 

Alicubi,  i.  445. 

Aliquando ,  i.  445. 

Allatius :  see  Leo. 

Allegorical  Interpretation,  i.  93,  199,  428; 
ii.  247. 

Allgemeine  Deutsche  Bibliothek,  ii.  381. 

Allies,  ii.  427. 


524 


INDEX. 


Allihn ,  ii.  409. 

Attoeosis,  ii.  346. 

Alogi,  i.  60,  61,  lit,  170  ;  ii.  328. 

'A hoyoc,  i.  458. 

Alombrados ,  ii.  205. 

Alschwinus :  see  Alenin- 

Alsted ,  ii.  300;  on  creation,  338-9. 

Alting,  H.,  ii.  170,  172. 

Alvarius  Pelagius,  ii.  32. 

Amalarius,  ii.  90,  91. 

Amalrich  of  Bena,  i.  403,  442,  469  ;  on  re¬ 
demption,  ii.  53  ;  on  Paradise,  133. 

Ambrose ,  i.  230,  235;  on  Trinity,  264;  sin, 
295;  on  invocation  of  angels,  338;  on 
baptism  and  forgiveness,  360  ;  on  eucha- 
rist,  362,  364 ;  first  used  inissa ;  on  future 
state,  377;  ii.  96,  on  change  in  elements 
(spurious  ?) 

America ,  Discovery  of,  i.  411. 

Ames ,  William,  ii.  174. 

Ammon ,  ii.  396,  405,  499,  513;  religion,  461. 
i.  115. 

Amphilochius  on  transubstantiation,  i.  361. 

Amsdorf  Nicolas,  ii.  148 ;  on  justification, 
286. 

Amularius ,  i.  383. 

Amulo  on  Jews,  i.  383. 

Amyraldus  (Ainyraut),  ii.  179,  180,  181, 
187  ;  on  predestination,  277,  278. 

Anabaptists ,  ii.  154,  155,  208,  211,  364,  513, 
516  ;  on  clergy,  291. 

Analogia  Fidei,  ii.  230,  231,  235. 

Analytic  Method ,  ii.  150,  152. 

’A vapapTyaia,  i.  178. 

Anastasius  of  Alexandria,  i.  276. 

Anastasius  Sinaita,  i.  288. 

Ancient  Church  History ,  works  on,  i.  40. 

Andrea, ,  Jacob,  ii.  149,  157,  207. 

Andreace ,  Valentin,  ii.  157. 

Andrews ,  Lancelot,  ii.  182,  187. 

Andrews ,  W.  W.,  ii.  414. 

Angels,  i.  138,  139,  338,  475  ;  ii.  341,  482. 

Angelites ,  i.  268. 

Angelolatry  forbidden,  i.  338. 

Angelom ,  i.  429. 

Angelus  Silesius,  ii.  204,  340. 

Anglican  Divines ,  ii.  182,  416 ;  on  the  church, 
ii.  296  ;  on  baptism,  ii.  364,  369. 

Anhalt ,  ii.  149. 

Anna,  Empress,  i.  475. 

Annihilation ,  i.  226. 

Annihilationists ,  ii.  451. 

Anointing ,  extreme  unction,  ii.  112. 

Anselm,  i.  391;  works,  392,  412;  on  evi¬ 
dences,  415  ;  on  faith,  416,  418  ;  on  Bible 
reading,  431 ;  ontological  argument,  433  ; 
on  knowing  God,  439  ;  on  attributes  of 
God,  445,  446  ;  on  eternity  and  omni¬ 
presence,  445,  446 ;  omnipotence,  449  ; 
on  procession  of  Holy  Ghost,  454,  455 ; 
on  Trinity,  457,  459,  460,  463  ;  on  the 
best  world,  473;  angelology,  476;  on 
fall  of  devil,  477,  478;  creationism,  ii.  14, 
17  ;  image  of  God,  19,  20,  21  ;  on  sin, 
23,  24;  on  imputation,  26-7;  on  free¬ 
dom,  28;  on  sinlessness  of  Mary,  31; 
christology,  36,  38  ;  on  birth  of  Virgin, 
40  ;  redemption,  41 ;  Cur  Deus  Homo,  43, 


44 ;  soteriology,  53 ;  on  election,  60,  61 ; 
transubstantiation,  96,  99,  100,  101 ;  on 
atonement,  355,  363,  497. 

Anslem  of  Havelberg,  i.  454. 

Ancyra,  Council,  i.  255. 

Antagonism ,  Age  of,  ii.  373  sq. 

Antecedent  will,  i.  332,  474. 

Anthropology,  i.  148,  229,  286 ;  of  scholas¬ 
tics,  ii.  13;  modern,  251,  485. 

Anthropomorphism,  i.  106,  109,  328. 

Anti- Burghers,  ii.  431. 

Antichrist,  ii.  119.  216. 

Antideistica,  ii.  382. 

’AvTcfioaeug  rpoixoc,  ii.  35,  352. 

Antilegomena,  i.  317. 

Antinomians ,  ii.  183,  192. 

Antinomian  Controversy,  ii.  148,  248. 

Antioch ,  School,  i.  239,  275,  320. 

Antioch,  Synod,  i.  248,  253. 

Antipodes,  i.  473. 

Antitrinitarians ,  i.  131 ;  ii.  210,  328.  See 
Unitarians. 

’ Avt ltv 7T a  in  Eucharist,  ii.  108. 

Apelles,  Gnostic,  i.  221. 

Appleton,  Jesse,  ii.  440. 

Aphthartodocetce,  i.  281. 

Apocalypse ,  i.  213,  214,  319. 

Apocrypha,  i.  84,  318  ;  ii.  230,  233,  472. 

Apocryphal  Gospels,  i.  85. 

Apollinaris,  i.  229,  271,  351;  millennarian, 
368. 

Apologetics ,  i.  19,  20 ;  ancient,  77,  313,  382  ; 
mediaeval,  414;  modern,  ii.  220. 

Apology  of  Augsburg  Confession,  ii.  146, 
148 :  see  Augsburg. 

Apostles ’  Creed,  i.  51, 173,  354;  ii.  157,  249, 
329,  354. 

' AnopvrjpovEv/iaTa,  i.  85. 

Apostles,  i.  44-6. 

Apostolate ,  new,  ii.  510. 

Apostolical  Fathers ,  i.  63. 

Apostolical  Succession,  ii.  291.  See  Epis¬ 
copacy. 

Apotheosis ,  ii.  354. 

Apthorp,  ii.  448. 

Aquarii,  i.  205. 

Aquinas ,  Thomas,  i.  396  ;  works,  397  ;  on 
Scotus,  398;  contra  Gentiles,  415;  on 
miracles,  415  ;  reason  and  revelation,  416, 
419  ;  tradition,  422  ;  inspiration,  426 ;  in¬ 
terpretation,  430  ;  ontological  argument, 
432,  436 ;  on  knowing  God,  139  ;  on 
Erigena,  442 ;  attributes  of  God,  447  ; 
omnipotence,  451 ;  will  of  God,  453  ;  pro¬ 
cession  of  Holy  Ghost,  456;  creation,  470, 
472;  theodicy,  474;  angelology,  476; 
devil,  478;  psychology,  ii.  14;  on  immor¬ 
tality,  16  ;  on  state  of  innocence,  18,  19  ; 
on  pura  naturalia,  19;  the  fall,  23;  here¬ 
ditary  sin,  26  ;  on  original  justice,  28 ;  on 
immaculate  conception,  30  ;  sanctification 
of  Mary,  32  ;  christolology,  35,  38  ;  atone¬ 
ment,  47,  50 ;  on  three  offices  of  Christ, 
50;  incarnation,  54,  55;  on  election,  60, 
62;  on  justification,  63,  64;  on  grace, 
64,  65;  on  indulgences,  70;  the  Hyper- 
dulia,  76;  number  of  sacraments,  77,79; 
idea  of  sacraments,  80,  82  ;  indelible 


INDEX. 


525 


character,  82  ;  on  baptismal  grace,  84,  85, 
86  ;  confirmation,  87  ;  transubstantiation, 
98,  99  ;  on  sacrifice  in  eucharist,  100 ;  the 
cup,  102  ;  concomitantia,  first  used,  103 ; 
on  penance,  109,  110,  111  ;  extreme  unc¬ 
tion,  113;  orders,  114,  115;  on  matri¬ 
mony,  116,  117;  resurrection,  123;  on 
the  judgment,  125,  126;  purgatory,  127; 
on  limbus  infantum,  131 ;  beatitude  and 
dos,  134 ;  hell,  136,  137,  354. 

Arabici ,  i.  159. 

Archaeology ,  works  on,  i.  22. 

Arch-heretic,  i.  54. 

Aretius ,  ii.  170,  171. 

Arguments  for  Being  of  God,  i.  325,  432  : 
see  God. 

Arianism ,  i.  229,  241,  249,  252-4,  256,  259, 
271,  328;  in  England,  ii.  184,  328,  332, 
478. 

Aristeas,  i.  88. 

Aristotelianism ,  i.  390,  395,  397,  408,  423 ; 
ii.  16. 

Arles ,  Synod,  i.  306. 

Arminians ,  ii.  208,  214,  218,  277  ;  in 
England,  182, 187  ;  learning  of,  214,  216; 
on  Scripture,  241 ;  on  interpretation,  243  ; 
on  state  of  innocence,  254 ;  on  original 
sin,  260;  on  freedom,  270;  on  justifica¬ 
tion,  281,  sq.  ;  on  the  church,  292  ;  on 
sacraments,  303 ;  on  Lord’s  Supper,  ii. 
309  ;  Trinity,  328,  332  ;  baptism,  367  ; 
infant  baptism,  369. 

Arminius ,  ii.  214,  215. 

Arnauld ,  ii.  201,  202,  277  ;  on  eucharist,  321. 

Arnd,  John,  ii.  154,  156;  on  justification, 
287. 

Arnobius,  i.  171,  230,  234;  on  sin,  295; 
miracles,  314'  inspiration,  321;  on  being 
of  God,  325  ;  on  eternity  of  God,  332  ; 
on  providence,  336 ;  annihilation,  226, 
376,  379. 

Arnold  of  Brenia,  i.  412. 

Arnold,  J.  G.,  ii.  154,  156. 

Arnold,  Thos.,  ii.  428. 

Art,  mediae val,  ii.  121. 

Artemon,  i.  60,  61,  117,  118,  170. 

Articles  XLII,  XXXIX,  Church  of  England, 
ii.  164,  166-7  ;  of  Lambeth,  182,  185  ;  of 
Dort,  164;  of  Remonstrants,  214,  215; 
of  Smalcald,  146 ;  of  Torgau,  147. 

'Aproc,  ii.  108. 

Artotyntes,  i.  205. 

Asbury,  ii.  450. 

Ascension-body ,  i.  177  :  see  Resurrection. 

Asceticism,  i.  291 ;  ii.  154. 

Ascusnages,  i.  268. 

Assembly,  Westminster,  ii.  169,  182. 

Asterius,  i.  257. 

Associate  Presbyterians ,  ii.  431. 

Assurance,  ii.  65,  277. 

Athanasian  Greed,  i.  269;  ii.  249,  329. 

Athanasius ,  i.  230,  231,  245,  247,  249,  251  ; 
on  the  Arian,  256  ;  on  Holy  Spirit, 
257-9 ;  procession  of  Holy  Spirit,  263 ; 
on  Trinity,  265 ;  on  Christ’s  humanity, 
271;  on  Apollinaris,  273;  on  sin,  291, 
293  ;  defense  of  Christ.,  313  ;  Bible,  316  ; 
canon,  319;  on  being  of  God,  325;  na¬ 


ture  of  God,  328;  on  dualism,  330;  cre¬ 
ation,  333  ;  on  redemption,  346  ;  on 
Lord’s  Supper,  365  ;  ii.  29. 

Atheism ,  ii.  475. 

Athenagoras,  i.  63,  68,  87 ;  on  unity  of 
God,  103,  110;  on  Logos,  120;  on  angels, 
139,  142  ;  on  freedom,  155  ;  on  resurrec¬ 
tion,  218,  219. 

Attains,  i.  104. 

Atonement,  i.  179,  345;  ii.  41,  46,  354,496; 
extent  of,  275,  351 ;  recent  German  con¬ 
troversy,  502-3  :  see  Death  of  Christ , 
Redemption. 

Attributes  of  God,  i.  109,  331,  445  ;  ii.  385, 
476:  see  God. 

Attritio ,  i.  188;  ii.  109,  111,  136,  325. 

Auberlen,  ii.  473. 

VA vxyya,  ii.  352. 

Auchterarder  Creed,  ii.  431 ;  Case,  4.34. 

Audceus,  i.  290. 

Audians,  i.  328. 

Auditio,  ii.  288. 

Auditor es,  i.  352. 

Augsburg  Apology  on  original  righteousness, 
ii.  253;  on  sacraments,  304;  mass,  311; 
penance,  325;  incarnation,  345;  atone¬ 
ment,  355-6;  baptism,  365  ;  on  Anabap¬ 
tists,  368. 

Augsburg  Confession ,  ii.  146,  147 ;  variata, 
147;  on  original  sin,  258;  on  freedom, 
272;  on  justification,  ii.  282;  faith,  283; 
on  the  order  of  redemption,  288  ;  on  the 
church,  292  ;  on  the  mass,  293,  310  ;  on 
saints,  301;  on  word  and  sacraments, 
305  ;  Lord’s  Supper,  316;  the  cup,  312; 
penance,  325;  Trinity,  329;  incarnation, 
345;  on  eschatology,  370;  on  restitution 
’  of  all  things,  371. 

Augusti,  ii.  453,  513;  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
devil,  i.  477  ;  on  spiritual  knights,  ii.  88. 

Augustine,  i.  230,  236-7,  240 ;  procession 
of  Holy  Spirit,  263  ;  Trinity,  265  ;  Christ’s 
body,  282;  traducianism,  288;  soul  and 
body,  289,  290- ;  freedom,  291  ;  the  fall, 
292 ;  sin,  295,  300  ;  freedom,  302  ;  pre¬ 
destination,  303  ;  on  religion,  312  ;  rev¬ 
elation,  312;  De  Civitate  Dei,  313;  mir¬ 
acles,  314;  on  tradition,  316';  the  Bible, 
317  ;  inspiration,  321 ;  interpretation,  323 ; 
councils,  324  ;  ontological  argument,  325  ; 
nature  of  God,  328 ;  attributes  of  God, 
331;  creation,  333;  the  six  days,  333; 
the  Trinity  in  creation,  334  ;  preservation, 
335 ;  evil,  337  ;  worship  of  angels,  338  ; 
fall  of  angels,  341 ;  conversion  of  devil, 
342 ;  redemption,  348,  extent  #f,  351 ; 
the  church,  352-3 ;  visible  and  invisible 
church,  354;  sacraments,  355-6;  bap¬ 
tism,  357-8-9  ;  children  not  baptized, 
360,  366 ;  cbiliasm,  369 ;  resurrection, 
370-1;  purgatory,  373-4;  heaven,  376; 
future  punishment,  376;  degrees  of  hap¬ 
piness  and  suffering,  379;  freedom,  ii. 
18,  25. 

Augustinianism ,  i.  239,  265,  296-305,  381 ; 
ii.  25,  60,  261,  265,  485. 

Augustus,  Elector,  ii.  149. 

Aureola ,  ii.  132. 


526 


INDEX. 


Auricular  Confession ,  ii.  Ill,  325. 
’Avts^ovclov,  i.  155. 

Autonomy  of  will ,  i.  155. 

’A vro&roc,  L  268. 

AuxiUus  on  ordination,  ii.  114. 

Averrhoes ,  i.  397. 

Avicebron,  i.  397,  443. 

Avicenna,  i.  397. 

Avitus  of  Yienne,  i.  306. 

Ayton ,  ii.  298. 

Azy mites,  ii.  108. 

Baader ,  ii.  457,  521. 

Backus ,  Charles,  ii.  435,  437. 

Backus ,  Isaac,  ii.  449. 

Bacon ,  Frauds,  ii.  221,  223,  224. 

Bacon ,  L.,  ii.  441. 

Bacon ,  Roger,  ii.  121,  406—7,  421. 

Baden  disputation,  ii.  160. 

Bagot ,  ii.  384. 

Bahrdt,  C.  F.,  ii.  382,  498. 

Baier,  J.  W.,  ii.  151,  153;  on  proofs  of 
Being  of  God,  335. 

Baillie,  ii.  185. 

Bain,  A.  ii.  425. 

Baird,  S.  J.,  ii.  445. 

Bogus ,  ii.  202,  280. 

Balaamites,  i.  54. 

Balfour ,  ii.  451. 

Bailer ius,  ii.  689. 

Ballou ,  ii.  441,  451. 

Bancroft ,  Abp.,  ii.  186. 

Bangor  Controversy ,  ii.  416,  417. 

Bangs,  ii.  450. 

Bannez,  ii.  280. 

Baptism ,  i.  197,  356  ;  ii.  84,  363,  513  ;  de¬ 
lay  of,  i.  358;  of  blood,  203,  ii.  84;  of 
heretics,  i.  202,  ii.  86 ;  of  martyrdom,  i. 
358;  of  tears,  358,  ii.  100;  and  faith, 
ii.  365  ;  and  original  sin,  i.  359,  364-5 ; 
repetition  of,  ii.  $6 ;  sins  before  and  after, 
ii.  110;  Romish,  ii.  364;  its  nature  and 
necessity  (Protestant  view),  ii.  364. 
’BaTCTLO/ua,  i.  198. 

Baptismal  regeneration ,  ii.  366,  368. 
Baptismus  Clinicorum,  i.  198. 

Baptists  in  America,  ii.  443,  449 ;  in  Eng¬ 
land,  ii.  423. 

Baptists,  Confessions  ofj  ii.  169. 

Bar  Sudaili ,  i.  308. 

Barclay ,  ii.  217  ;  on  Scripture,  238;  on  the 
church,  295. 

Bardesanes,  i.  59,  137. 

Barhebraius,  i.  386. 

Bari,  council,  i.  454. 

Barlaam,  i.  474. 

Barlow,  Thos.  ii  182,  183,  190,  297. 
Barnabas,  i.  64,  78;  epistle,  318;  on  re¬ 
demption,  182. 

Barnes,  Albert,  ii.  433,  442,  448,  503,  505. 
Baroe,  ii.  185. 

Barret,  ii.  185. 

Barrow,  ii.  183,  188,  297. 

Barthels,  ii.  385. 

Baruch,  i.  318. 

Basedow ,  ii.  381. 

Basil  of  Ancyra,  i.  255. 

Basil  the  Great,  i.  230,  231  ;  on  Holy 


Spirit,  260 ;  procession  of  Holy  Spirit, 
263-4;  on  Trinity,  265;  :3n  sin,  291; 
inspiration,  321 ;  angels,  338  ;  on  bap¬ 
tism,  357  ;  baptism  of  heretics,  360;  end 
of  world,  373  ;  heaven,  377 

Basilides,  i.  118,  170. 

Basle,  ii.  413. 

Basle  Confessions,  ii.  163 ;  on  authority  of 
creeds,  250  ;  on  Scripture,  232  ;  on  orig¬ 
inal  righteousness,  253  ;  on  original  sin, 
258  ;  on  immaculate  conception,  262  ;  on 
decrees,  273;  on  election,  274;  on  faith, 
284 ;  on  church,  292  ;  on  discipline,  299  ; 
on  number  of  sacraments,  304 ;  on  Lord’s 
Supper,  317  ;  Trinity,  330. 

Basle ,  councils,  ii.  32,  72. 

Basnage,  ii.  200. 

Bates,  Wm.,  ii.  183,  190. 

Bauer ,  Bruno,  ii.  409. 

Baumgarten  Crusius  on  Reformation,  ii. 
140  ;  Roman  Catholic  Church,  206 ;  So- 
cinus,  212  ;  sentimental  religion,  381. 

Baumgarten,  M.,  ii.  522. 

Baumgarten ,  S.  J.,  i.  37  ;  ii.  378,  392. 

Baur,  F.  C.,  i.  48,  58,  105  ;  his  works,  ii. 
409,  498  ;  christology,  495 ;  on  Beryl,  i. 
132  ;  angelology,  139  ;  Gnostic  fate,  157  ; 
Gnostics,  173;  redemption,  180;  Arius, 
250 ;  on  Nicene  creed,  252  ;  Marcellus, 
258;  Philoponus,  268;  Eunomius,  272; 
Monothelites,  284;  Pelagius,  303;  on  the 
Predestinatus,  306  ;  on  apologetics,  314  ; 
tradition,  324 ;  on  ontological  argument, 
327 ;  Manichees,  334,  353 ;  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  347  ;  theory  of  atonement,  350  ; 
theories  of  the  eucharist,  363  ;  scholasti¬ 
cism,  390 ;  Abelard,  393  ;  the  Lombard, 
395;  Aquinas  and  Scotus,  398;  scholas¬ 
ticism,  401 ;  mysticism,  402  ;  Anselm, 
418;  Aquinas,  419;  Abelard  and  Aqui¬ 
nas  on  tradition,  422  ;  Anselm’s  argument 
for  Being  of  God,  434 ;  David  of  Dinanto, 
443  ;  the  scholastic  Trinity,  469 ;  on  Aqui¬ 
nas  on  creation,  470;  on  Erigena,  ii.  24, 
40  ;  on  the  Damascene,  36  ;  on  adoption- 
ism,  36;  on  Aquinas’  christology,  38; 
Anselm,  43,  46,  47  ;  Aquinas  on  sacra¬ 
ments,  97  ;  on  John  of  Damascus  on  the 
eucharist,  108 ;  Catholicism  and  Protest¬ 
antism,  141 ;  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism, 
142  ;  Sebastian  Frank,  155 ;  Schwenck- 
feld,155;  Calvinism,  160, 2 74;  justification, 
284 ;  faith,  284,  note;  Osiander,  286,  287  ; 
on  communicatio  idiomatum,  347—8 ;  on 
Schwenckfeld, 348-9 ;  on  Protestant  atone¬ 
ment,  355-6;  active  and  passive  obedi¬ 
ence,  358 ;  Grotius,  361 ;  Osiander,  363  ; 
the  issue  of  the  Reformation,  375;  on 
English  deism,  379 ;  pietism, 388 ;  Schleier- 
macher,  404;  Hegel,  501;  on  faith,  5C4. 

Bautain,  ii.,  454,  457,  458. 

Bay,  do;  see  Bajus. 

Bayle  on  Keckermann,  ii.  172,  222. 

Baxter,  ii.  183,  191,  222,  224,  227,  371, 

Beach,  J.  ii.  448. 

Beard,  J.  R.,  ii.  422. 

Beasley,  ii.  446. 

Beatitudo,  ii.  134. 


INDEX. 


527 


Beatitudo  and  dos,  in  Aquinas,  ii.  134. 

Beattie ,  ii.  432. 

Beat  us ,  ii.  37. 

Becanus,  ii.  197,  200. 

Beck,  J.  C.,  ii.  378. 

Beck,  J.  T.,  ii.  406,  410. 

Bede,  i.  387  ;  on  predestination,  ii.  57  ;  Lord’s 
Supper,  89,  90;  extreme  unction,  112. 

Beecher,  Edward,  ii.  441. 

Beecher ,  Lyman,  ii.,  443. 

Bee/l QPovTi.,  L  142. 

Beets,  ii.,  413. 

Beghards,  i.  384 ;  christology,  ii.  40 ;  on  re¬ 
demption,  53;  on  hell,  132,  137. 

Beguines ,  i.  384,  423 ;  on  resurrection,  ii.  123. 

Behmen,  see  Bohme. 

Bekker,  ii.  41 ;  on  reason,  248. 

Being  of  God,  i.  325,  432  ;  ii.  333,  476. 

Belgic  Confession ,  on  original  sin,  ii.  259;  on 
church,  292. 

Belief  in  Christ,  in  God,  ii.  68. 

Bellamy ,  ii.  435,- 437. 

Bellarmine,  ii.  197,  199;  on  interpretation, 
234 ;  on  inspiration,  247 ;  on  original 
righteousness,  252  ;  on  creatianism,  264  ; 
freedom  and  grace,  269  ;  justification,  283 ; 
the  church,  291;  notes  of  the  church,  297  ; 
church  a  state,  299  ;  sacrifice,  311 ;  satis¬ 
faction,  357-8. 

Bellows ,  ii.  442. 

Belsham,  ii.  421. 

Beman,  ii.  445. 

Benedict,  D.,  ii.  449. 

Benedict  X1L,  on  sleep  of  soul,  ii.  129. 

Benezet,  ii.  451. 

Bev,oit,  ii.  225. 

B  eng  el,  J.  A.,  ii.  383,  388,  389,  471,  517, 
518;  on  Pelagianism,  505;  on  Zinzen- 
dorf,  479,  497. 

Bentham,  ii.  423,  424. 

Bentley,  RcL,  ii.  226. 

Berg,  J.  F.,  ii.  451. 

Bergen  Book,  ii.  149. 

Berengar ,  i.  384;  on  sacraments,  ii.  77  ; 
Lord’s  Supper,  89,  92,  93,  94. 

Berkeley,  ii.,  226,  383-4,  422. 

Berington ,  ii.,  422,  458. 

Bernard  of  Clairvaux ,  i.  402,  412  ;  on  faith, 
417,  419  ;  Scripture,  423 ;  interpretation, 
429  ;  omnipresence,  etc.,  447 ;  freedom, 
ii.  28;  on  immaculate  conception,  30,  31  ; 
atonement,  46,  48  ;  on  the  two  swords,  72; 
on  worship  of  Mary,  75;  on  feet  washing, 
78;  baptism,  86. 

Berne ,  ii.  160,  413. 

Berne  Disputation ,  ii.  160. 

Beron,  i.  132. 

Berriman,  ii.  333. 

Berthold,  i.  421 ;  on  creation,  471 ;  on  an¬ 
gels,  476;  creatianism,  it  15;  on  image 
of  God,  20;  on  preachers,  70;  papacy, 
72;  on  sacraments,  79;  baptism,  85; 
purgatory,  128  ;  limbus  infantum,  131. 

Berti,  ii.  199. 

Bertramn,  see  Batramn. 

Beryllus,  i.  60,  117,  131-2. 

Beveridge,  ii.  183,  189. 

Beza,  ii.  166,  170-71;  supralapsarian,  274. 


Bible,  i.  315-19,  421,  465;  in  general  use, 
92  ;  reading  of,  428  ;  Cranmer’s,  ii.  183  ; 
Luther’s,  145;  see  Inspiration,  Interpre¬ 
tation,  Scripture. 

Bible  Societies,  ii.  406. 

Bible  and  Tradition,  ii.  30 ;  see  Tradition. 

Biblical  Criticism ,  i.  424  ;  ii.  416  ;  see  Crit¬ 
icism. 

Biblical  Learning  in  England,  ii.  416,  423 ; 
in  America,  442;  Roman  Catholic,  206; 
see  Bible. 

Biblical  Theology ,  i.  16. 

Bibliotheca  Fratrum  Polonorum ,  ii.  212  ;  on 
Trinity,  331. 

Bicker steth,  ii.  425. 

Biddle ,  ii.  213. 

Biel,  Gabriel,  i.  399,  400 ;  on  opus  operatum, 
ii.  82,  83. 

Billroth,  ii.  409,  469. 

Billuart ,  ii.  199. 

Bilson,  ii.  186. 

Bingham,  ii.  186,  296. 

Biran ,  Maine  de,  ii.  415. 

Bircherod,  ii.  152. 

Birks,  ii.  429. 

Blackburne,  Archd.,  ii.  327,  422. 

Black  Death,  i.  412. 

Blair,  Hugh,  ii.  430,  432. 

Blanc,  Louis  le,  ii.  277. 

Blandrata,  ii.  211. 

Blanche,  ii.  400,  482  ;  on  sin,  ii.  487  ;  Chriat- 
ology,  492  ;  atonement,  501. 

Blau,  ii.  455. 

Blessig,  ii.  414. 

Blondel,  ii.  180,  181,  279. 

Bloomfield,  S.  T.,  ii.  423,  429. 

Blount,  ii.  222,  225. 

Blunt,  J.  J.,  ii.  428-. 

Bluttlieologie,  ii.  392. 

Bochold ,  ii.  209. 

Bockshammer ,  ii.  470. 

Bodin,  Jean,  ii.  222. 

Body  and  Soul ,  ii.  13,  151-3 ;  see  Anthro¬ 
pology. 

Boethius,  i.  230,  238;  on  Trinity,  267;  on- 
tological  argument,  325’'  390. 

Bogomiles ,  ii.  122,  384. 

Bohemian  Brethren ,  ii.  71 ;  confession  of,  169. 

Bogardus,  ii.  450. 

Bohme ,  ii.  154,  156,  301,  371,  390 ;  on  in* 
spiration,  245 ;  justification,  287  ;  Trinity, 
336;  creation,  339;  christology,  350. 

Bohmer,  J.  H.,  ii.  510 ;  on  pantheism,  474-5. 

Bolingbroke ,  ii.  379. 

Bolsec,  ii.  277-8. 

Bona,  ii.  204 

Bonald,  de,  ii.  458. 

Bonaventura ,  John  of  Fidanza,  i.  396 ;  works, 
399;  on  reading  the  Bible,  431;  om¬ 
nipresence  of  God,  447  ;  eternity,  448  ; 
creation,  47  2  ;  angelology,  47  6 ;  psychol¬ 
ogy,  ii.  15  ;  immortality,  17  ;  sin  of  Adam, 
23;  immaculate  conception,  32;  atone¬ 
ment,  51 ;  election,  60-2  ;  grace,  65  ; 
worship  of  Mary,  7  5  ;  sacraments,  77,  79; 
confirmation,  87;  Lord’s  Supper,  98;  the 
cup,  102;  penance,  111;  marriage,  117; 
purgatory,  127. 


528 


INDEX. 


Boniface ,  ii.  12*7,  306. 

Boniface  VIII.,  ii.  72,  88. 

Bonnet ,  ii.  470. 

Book  of  Bergen ,  ii.  149, 

Book  of  Common  Prayer ,  ii.  166,  167,  182; 
on  baptism,  368. 

Book  of  Discipline ,  Scotch,  ii.  185. 

Book  of  Homilies  on  Justification ,  ii.  285. 
Boos,  ii.  456. 

Booth,  ii.  417,  429,  507. 

Boothroyd ,  ii.  419. 

Boquin,  ii.  172,  175,  176. 

Borhaus,  (Cellarius,)  ii.  209. 

Borromeo,  ii.  204. 

Bose,  de,  ii.  279. 

Bost,  ii.  415. 

Boston  Synod,  ii.  169. 

Boston,  Tlios.,  ii.  192,  431. 

Bossuet,  ii.  197,  199,  204  ;  on  Bp.  Bull,  188  ; 
on  union,  219  ;  on  worship  of  saints,  302  ; 
on  transubstantiation,  323-4 ;  purgatory, 
326. 

Boucat,  ii.  199. 

Bourignon,  Antoinette,  ii.  177. 

Bouterwek,  ii.  409. 

Bowden ,  ii.  449. 

Bowen ,  ii.  446. 

Boyle ,  ii.  222,  226. 

Brachmand ii.  152. 

Bradshaw,  fm.,  ii.  186. 

Bradwardine,  Thos.,  ii.  62. 

Brahminism,  i.  114. 

Bramhall,  ii.  183,  188,  224. 

Brandt ,  ii.  215. 

Braun ,  ii.  174. 

Bread ,  see  Lord's  Supper. 

Breaking  of  Bread,  ii.  323;  see  Lord’s  Sup¬ 
per. 

Breckling,  ii.  156. 

Bremen  Gymnasium ,  ii.  175-6. 
j Brenz  on  the  canon,  ii.  242  ;  on  (Ecolampa- 
dius,  314. 

Bres,  Guido  de,  ii.  167. 

Bresten ,  in  Zwingle,  ii.  257. 

Brett,  ii.  183,  189,  296. 

Bretland ,  ii.  421. 

Bretschneider,  ii.  398,  507. 

Brevianum  Bom.,  ii.  197. 

Brevint,  ii.  297. 

Bridges,  John,  ii.  186. 

Bridget,  St.,  i.  427  ;  ii.  32. 

Bridgewater  Treatises,  ii.  429 
Broad  Church,  ii.  423,  428. 

Br ogden,  ii.  297. 

Brokesby,  ii.  298. 

Bromley ,  ii.  177-8,  205. 

Brooks ,  ii.  191. 

Broughton ,  John,  ii.  371. 

Brown,  Thos.,  ii.  433-4. 

Browne,  Bp.  Peter,  ii.  225,  227. 

Browne,  Simon,  ii.  227. 

Browning,  ii.  185. 

Brownson,  ii.  459. 

Broughton,  il  227. 

Bruce,  W.,  ii.  435. 

Bruch ,  il  414,  477. 

Bruno,  Eusebius,  it  9®. 

Bruno,  ii.  221 


Bucanus,  ii.  170,  171 ;  on  Adam’s  innocence, 
254 ;  creationism,  264. 

Bucer,  ii.  163,  170,  218;  in  England,  185; 
on  Lord’s  Supper,  317-18. 

Buchanan,  ii.  434. 

Biichlein  von  der  deutschen  Theologie ,  ii.  65. 

Buchner,  ii.  475. 

Buckeridge ,  ii.  297. 

Buckminster ,  ii.  441. 

Buddeus ,  J.  E.,  ii.  376;  on  Konig,  153. 

Bugenhagen,  ii.  147. 

Bugri,  i.  384. 

Bull,  Bp.  Geo.,  ii.  183,  188,  210,  213,  285  ; 
on  Trinity,  328,  332. 

Bullarium,  i.  35. 

Bullinger,  H.,  ii.  160,  164,  166 ;  confession 
of,  163. 

Bunsen,  ii.  411,  428. 

Bunyan ,  ii.  183,  190. 

Bur  dig  al,  ii.  199. 

Burgess,  ii.  190,  418,  421. 

Burghers,  ii.  431. 

Burmann,  ii.  170,  174, 199;  on  Christ’s  obe¬ 
dience,  359. 

Bur  map,  ii.  441. 

Burnet,  Thos.,  ii.  183,  189,  416,  417,  418;  on 
Sarpi,  195  ;  on  foreign  orders,  297. 

Burning  of  World,  i.  221 ;  see  Eschatology. 

Burr,  ii.  438. 

Burroughes,  ii.  190. 

Burton,  Asa,  ii.  439. 

Burten,  Ed.,  ii.  422,  423,  428;  on  Gnostics, 
i.  223. 

Bury,  Arthur,  ii.  213. 

Bush,  George,  ii.  448. 

Bushnell,  ii.  436,  442,  503. 

Butler,  Alban,  ii.  454. 

Butler,  Charles,  ii.  458. 

Butler,  Bp.  Joseph,  ii.  227,  422. 

Butler,  W.  A.,  ii.,  425. 

Cdbasilas :  see  Nicolas. 

Ccecilian,  i.  353. 

Caesar  of  Heisterbach.  i.  443 ;  ii.  100. 

Caius,  i.  213. 

Cainians,  i.  202. 

Cajetan,  i.  439  ;  ii.  197. 

Calamy,  ii.  183,  191,  213,  298,  333. 

Calderwood,  ii.  192. 

Calixt ,  George,  ii.  150,  152,  157,  158,  219, 
on  inspiration,  244 ;  tradition,  249 ;  justi- 
tia  originalis,  255;  sin,  263,  266;  crea¬ 
tionism,  266  ;  justification,  286  ;  ubiquity, 
316  ;  Trinity,  337. 

Calixtines,  i.  410. 

Calov ,  ii.  151,  153;  against  Calixt,  250;  on 
original  rectitude,  253  ;  on  sin,  263,  266. 

Calvin ,  ii.  159  ;  works,  161 ;  Institutes,  161 ; 
influence,  162  ;  Consensus  Genevensis, 
164;  Catechism  of  Geneva,  168,  182;  on 
Scripture,  231,  236  ;  inspiration,  242  ; 
original  righteousness,  253 ;  original  sin, 
257;  creationism,  264;  predestination, 
273-4;  on  Castellio  and  Bolsec.  277-8; 
justification,  282  ;  on  Osiander,  287  ;  order 
of  salvation,  288 ;  the  church,  292,  293  ; 
on  .  excommunication,  299;  sacraments, 
307-8;  Lord’s  Supper,  309,  317,  318;  the 


INDEX. 


529 


mass,  311;  on  Westphal,  318;  on  Zwin- 
gle,  318  ;  charged  with  Arianism,  329  ;  on 
,  Trinity,  329 ;  on  nature  of  creation,  338  ; 
Satan,  342 ;  angels,  342  ;  person  of 
Christ,  345  ;  three  offices,  353  ;  atone¬ 
ment,  356  ;  obedience  of  Christ,  3^8  ;  on 
Osiander,  366  ;  baptism  and  original  sin, 
365;  on  psychopannychy,  370,  371. 

Calvinism ,  ii.  141,  142  ;  its  peculiarity,  160; 
symbolical  books,  162  ;  theology,  170  sq. ; 
on  decrees,  268  sq.  ;  on  the  church, 
293-4. 

Calvinism  and  Lutheranism ,  ii.  141,  142, 
149,  159,  160,  162  ;  attempts  at  union, 
218,  228,  229;  decrees,  268;  faith,  284; 
economy  of  redemption,  288 ;  worship, 
290  ;  ordination,  295  ;  the  Lord’s  Supper, 
314  sq. ;  the  host,  323;  christology,  345; 
on  Christ’s  humiliation,  etc.,  351 ;  bap¬ 
tism,  364  sq. 

Calvinism  in  England,  ii.  182,  185,  417 ;  in 
America,  435 ;  in  Greek  Church,  295. 

Calvinists ,  ii.  452,  513. 

Cambridge ,  Synod,  ii.  169. 

Cameron ,  John,  ii.  180;  on  obedience  of 
Christ,  362,  363. 

Cameronians ,  ii.  431. 

Campanella,  ii.  221. 

Ca  mp  anu  s,  John,  ii.  211. 

Camp  anus ,  Wm.,  ii.  331. 

Campbell ,  Alex.,  ii.  449. 

Campbell ,  Geo.,  ii.  379,  432. 

Campbell,  McLeod,  ii.  428. 

Campbellites  in  America,  ii.  443. 

Campe ,  ii.  381. 

Candlish ,  ii.  434. 

Canisius ,  Catechism,  ii.  197,  200. 

Cannae  Eudharisticoe,  ii.  103. 

Canon ,  i.  83,  230,  317,  383,  424. 

Canon  Law ,  ii.  71. 

Canons  of  Trent ,  ii.  196. 

Canus ,  ii.  197,  200. 

Canz,  ii.  377. 

Capadose ,  ii.  413. 

Capernaitic  Interpretation,  i.  366  ;  ii.  89,  94. 

Capito ,  ii.  170  ;  on  Lord’s  Supper,  318. 

Capnio :  see  Renchlin. 

Capped ,  ii.  179,  278. 

Carleton ,  Bp.  George,  ii.  182,  188,  466. 

Carlovingian  Age,  i.  386. 

Carlstadt,  ii.  154;  on  Lord’s  Supper,  309, 
310;  Scripture,  236;  on  criticism,  241. 

Caroli,  ii.  329. 

Carpenter,  Lant,  ii.  421. 

Carpocrates ,  i.  59. 

Carpov,  ii.  377. 

Carpzov  of  Dresden,  ii.  392. 

Carson,  ii.  429. 

Cartesian  Philosophy,  ii.  178,  221. 

Carthage,  i.  239. 

Carthage  Synods,  i.  298,  317. 

Cartwright,  ii.  182,  184,  186,  298. 

Cassander ,  ii.  218. 

Cassian,  John,  i.  230,  237,  287,  306,  343. 

Cassiodorus,  i.  390. 

Castellio,  ii.  277,  278. 

Cataphrygians ,  i.  60. 

Catechism  of  Calvin,  ii.  182  ;  Canisius,  197 ; 


Cranmer’s,  183;  Geneva,  164;  Heidel¬ 
berg,  164,  165;  of  Leo  Judee,  307;  of 
Luther,  146,  148  ;  of  Moscorovius,  212  ; 
Poinet’s  166;  Roman,  196;  Racovian, 
210,  212  ;  of  Socinus,  212  ;  of  Schmelz 
(Socinian),  212;  of  Schomann  (Socinian), 
212;  Westminster,  169. 

Catechisms ,  i.  32. 

Cathari,  ii.  122,  384;  on  purgatory,  127. 
Catharinus,  ii.  198. 

Catholic  (ancient)  Doctrine ,  i.  62. 
Catholicism:  see  Romanism. 

Catholics,  union  with  Protestants,  ii.  218. 
Catlin,  ii.  440. 

Caitenburg ,  Andr.  A.,  ii.  216. 

Cave,  ii.  298. 

Cecil ,  Richard,  ii.  425. 

Celestine  of  Rome,  i.  277,  296,  309. 

Celibacy,  i.  411;  ii.  116. 

Cella7'ius,  ii.  209. 

Celsus,  i.  137. 

Cerdano,  ii.  220. 

Cerdo,  i.  59. 

Ceremonies,  ii.  301. 

Cerinthus,  i.  55,  57,  170,  213,  215. 

Certitudo  salutis,  ii.  277. 

Cerularius,  Michael,  ii.  108. 

Cesar  of  Arles,  i.  306,  373  :  see  Ccesar. 
Cesar o-papism,  ii.  299. 

Chalcedon,  Council,  i.  282. 

Chaldee  Christians,  i.  385. 

Ghalloner,  ii.  459. 

Chalmers ,  ii.  431,  434. 

Chamier,  ii.  170,  171. 

Champlin,  ii.  446. 

Chandler,  Bp.  ii.  225. 

Chandler,  T.  B.,  ii.  449. 

Channing,  ii.  436,  441. 

Chantepie,  ii.  413. 

Character  indelibilis ,  ii.  80,294. 

Charenton  Synod,  ii.  181. 

Chardieu  (Sardel),  ii.  172. 

Charlemagne,  i.  453 ;  on  image  worship, 
ii.  7  6. 

Charles  the  Bald,  ii.  58. 

Charles  II.  (England),  ii.  182. 

Charnock ,  ii.  183,  190. 

Charron,  ii.  222. 

Chatel,  ii.  457. 

Chateaubriand,  ii.  457. 

Chandieu,  ii.  166. 

Chauncy,  ii.  438,  449,  451. 

Checkley ,  ii.  448. 

Cheese  in  the  Lord’s  Supper :  see  Artotyrites. 
Xetporovia,  ii.  114. 

Chennitz,  ii.  149,  150,  151. 

Cheneviere ,  ii.  415. 

Children,  Communion  of,  ii.  109:  see  Com¬ 
munion. 

Chillingworth,  ii.  180,  183,  194. 

Chiliasm,  i.  119,  213,  360  :  see  Millenna- 
rianism. 

MttSn,  i.  115. 

Choniates :  see  Nicetas. 

Chrism,  ii.  364. 

Xoiopa,  ii.  87,  112,  118. 

Christ,  Life  of,  works  on,  i.  43 ;  human  na¬ 
ture,  271,  ii.  175;  redemption  by,  L 


530 


INDEX. 


345 ;  two  wills,  282  ;  glorified  body,  282, 
ii.  177;  God-Man,  171;  union  of  soul 
and  body  in  death,  41 ;  second  advent, 
124;  sinlessness,  178,  490,  494;  ideal 
and  historical,  489.  See  Christology , 
Natures ,  Will,  God-man ,  Hypostasis ,  Atone¬ 
ment,  Redemption ,  Advent ,  Monothelite, 
Trinity ,  etc. 

Christian  II.,  Elector,  ii.  151. 

Christianity ,  i.  44,  60,  313,  414;  ii.  461,  463. 

Christology ,  i.  169,  229,  243,  277  ;  ii.  35— 
56,  344,  485,  489. 

Chrysostom ,  i.  230,  232,  255 ;  on  Christ’s 
body,  282 ;  on  sin,  293 ;  the  Scripture, 
317  ;  inspiration,  320 ;  providence,  335  ; 
Lord’s  Supper,  362,  364 ;  resurrection, 

370,  377  ;  on  future  punishment,  376,  380. 

Chubb,  ii.  222,  226. 

Church,  i.  193,  352,  ii.  71,  289,  519;  or¬ 
ganization,  299 ;  representation,  300 ;  vis¬ 
ible  and  invisible,  i.  354 :  see  Bishop , 
Priests,  Pope,  Presbyterian,  Clergy,  etc, 

Church  of  England  on  the  Episcopate,  ii. 
291 ;  in  America,  448  :  see  England. 

Church  History,  works  on,  i.  39  ;  Tables  of, 
40. 

Church  and  State,  ii.  71,  299,  509,  511. 

Churches  dedicated  to  angels,  i.  338. 

Churchill,  Edmund,  ii.  371. 

Chytrceus,  ii.  149. 

Clairvoyance,  ii.  482. 

Clanburg,  ii.  179. 

Clap ,  Thomas,  ii.,  437. 

Clarendon,  Lord,  ii.  224. 

Clarke,  Samuel,  ii.  183,  194,  210,  213,  225, 
226,  329,  332,  414,  478  ;  on  Dodwell, 

371. 

Clarisse,  ii.  413. 

Clarkson,  D.,  ii.  191. 

Classical  studies,  i.  406,  ii.  383. 

Claude,  ii.  279  ;  on  eucharist,  324. 

Claudius  of  Savoy,  ii.  211. 

Claudius  of  Turin,  i.  387. 

Clausen,  ii.  412. 

Clemens ,  ii.  457. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  i.  63  ;  works,  72,  76, 
79,  110,  111;  on  inspiration,  89;  tradi¬ 
tion,  96,  97  ;  on  being  of  God,  102;  on 
unity  of  God,  103;  names  of  God,  105; 
on  anthropomorphism,  107  ;  on  Logos, 
120-1 ;  creation,  i.  133,  135  ;  providence, 
136,  137  ;  on  Christ,  175;  sinlessness  of 
Christ,  178;  redemption,  181,  189;  be¬ 
lief,  190;  the  church,  193;  baptism,  199, 
202 ;  Lord’s  Supper,  204 ;  resurrection, 
220  ;  intermediate  state,  223,  281. 

Clement  of  Rome,  i.  65,  78;  on  redemption, 
182;  eschatology,  226;  on  resurrection, 
217,  218. 

Clement  IV.,  ii.  105. 

Clement  V.,  ii.  84,  95. 

Clement  VI.,  ii.  69. 

Clement  VIII.,  ii.  280. 

Clementine  Homilies,  i.  55,  67,  77,  85,  143, 
154,  163,  197,  199. 

Clergy,  ii.  114,  290. 

Clericus  (Le  Clerc),  ii.  199,  216. 

Gierke,  Gilbert,  ii.  213. 


Clemangis ,  i.  423,  ii.  73. 

Cobham,  Lewis,  ii.  121. 

Cocceius ,  ii.  170,  173,  175;  on  interpret* 
tion,  241,  247  ;  on  atonement,  356. 

Cochlceus,  ii.  197,  198. 

Coetus  Party,  ii.  451. 

Colani,  ii.  415. 

Coleridge,  ii.  423,  424,  442,  446. 

Collections  of  works  of  Fathers,  etc.  i.  34. 

Collegial  system,  ii.  509. 

Collegium  Trinitatis,  ii.  351. 

Collenbusch,  ii.  502. 

Collier,  Arthur,  ii.  333. 

Collins,  ii.  222,  223,  228. 

Colloquium  Charitativum,  ii.  219. 

Colloquium  Lipsiacum ,  ii.  169. 

Colloquy  of  Marburg,  ii.  309,  316. 

Cologne ,  i.  412. 

Combe,  Fran<jois  de,  ii.  205. 

Commenius .  ii.  178. 

Common-sense  Philosophy,  ii.  220. 

Communio,  ii.  208,  323. 

Communion  of  Children,  i.  205,  367,  ii.  109. 

Communion  of  Sick ,  ii.  323. 

Communicatio  idiomatum,  ii.  344,  351. 

Comprehensibility  of  God,  i.  327,  438. 

Comte,  ii.  415,  424. 

Concomitance,,  ii.  95,  102,  103. 

Concordia,  ii.  146,  150 :  see  Formula. 

Concursus  Dei,  i.  137,  ii.  341. 

Condillac,  ii.  379. 

Conferentie  Party,  ii.  451. 

Confessio  oris,  ii.  109. 

Confession ,  ii.  325;  to  laymen,  111 ;  auricu¬ 
lar,  111. 

Confessions,  conflicts  of,  ii.  452. 

Confessions  of  Faith  (see  Symbolism),  Angli¬ 
can  (XXXIX  Articles),  ii.  164,  166-67  ; 
Augsburg,  146,  147,  Apology  of,  147  ; 
Baptist,  169 ;  Basle,  162 ;  Second  of 
Basle  (First  Helvetic),  163;  Branden¬ 
burg,  164,  168;  of  Cyril  Lucar,  207;  of 
Damascus,  249 ;  Dort,  164,  168 ;  of 
Episcopius,  214;  Gallic,  164,  166;  Gen¬ 
eva,  164;  of  Greek  Church  (1642),  207; 
Hungarian,  164,  167;  Marchica,  275;  of 
Mennonites,  209;  Polish,.  169;  of  Re¬ 
formed  Churches,  162  sq. ;  Remonstrants, 
214;  Savoy,  169;  Scotch,  164,  167; 
Tetrapolitana  (Argentinensis,  Suevica), 
162;  of  Thorn,  164,  168;  Westminster, 
169. 

Confirmation,  ii.  87,  325,' 513. 

Confutation  of  Augsburg  Confession ,  ii.  146, 
147. 

Confutatio  of  1550,  ii.  272. 

Congregationalism,  works  on,  ii.  298. 

Congregati'ones  de  Auxiliis,  ii.  278. 

Cononites,  i.  372. 

Conrad ,  ii.  211. 

Conradi,  ii.  493. 

Consecration,  formulas  of,  i.  363;  ii.  114. 

Consensus  of  Church,  ii.  249. 

Consensus  Dresdensis ,  ii.  149 ;  Genevensis,  ii, 
164,  in  England,  ii.  185;  Sendomirensis, 
169,  219;  Tigurinus,  164-5. 

Consensus  Repetitus,  on  inspiration,  ii.  244 
on  traducianism,  264 ;  on  church,  294 


INDEX. 


531 


on  breaking  the  bread,  323 ;  on  Trinity, 
335  ;  Trinity  in  Old  Test.,  337. 

Consequent  Will,  i.  474. 

Conservatives ,  ii.  374. 

Constance ,  Council,  ii.  33,  103. 

Constant,  ii.  414. 

Constantine ,  i.  251,  253;  on  councils,  324. 
Constantine  Monomachus,  ii.  108. 

Constantinus  Pogonatus,  i.  283. 

Constantinople  Council,  (2d  General,)  i.  252  ; 

synod  of,  754,  ii.  108. 

Constantinople,  conquest  of,  i.  411. 
Constantius,  i.  253. 

Constitute  Unigenitus ,  ii.  70. 

Constitutions,  Apostolical,  i.  143,  318. 
Consubstantiality  of  Sin,  i.  246,  251. 
Consubstantiation,  ii.  107,  309,  320. 
Contingence  of  Sin ,  ii.  266. 

Contingency,  argument  from,  i.  432. 

Contritio  Cordis,  ii.  109,  111. 

Conversio,  i.  188  ;  ii.  109,  288,  325. 
Convocation,  in  England,  ii.  417. 

Conybeare,  Bp.,  ii.  226. 

Conybeare ,  ii.  429. 

Co-operation,  ii.  64,  269. 

Cook,  Geo.,  ii.  431. 

Cooper ,  A.  A.,  222. 

Coornpert,  ii.  259. 

Copleston ,  ii.  281,  423,  427. 

Copts,  i.  241. 

Coracion,  i.  368. 

Corinth,  church  of)  i.  53. 

Corlobasus-  Gnosis,  i.  119. 

Corona  Aurea,  ii.  132. 

Corporeity  of  God,  i.  107. 

Corpus  Christi  Day ,  ii.  95. 

Correspondences,  ii.  472. 

Cosin,  ii.  183,  188,  296. 

Cosmology ,  i.  432. 

Cosmological  Argument,  i.  325,  432. 

Coster,  ii.  197,  200. 

Cotton,  John,  192,  298. 

Council  of  Aix-la-  Chapelle,  i.  454 ;  of  Ancy- 
ra,  255;  of  Antioch,  253;  of  Arles,  306; 
Bari,  454;  Basle,  ii.  32,  72;  Beziers,  i. 
430  ;  Carthage,  29$,  317 ;  Constance,  ii. 
103,  104;  of  Constantinople  (2d  General), 

i.  252,  258;  Constantinople,  754;  ii.  108; 
Cressy,  56,  60;  Diospolis,  i.  298,  352;  of 
Ephesus,  i.  275;  Florence,  i.  454,  456;  ii. 

88,  108,  110,  113,  114,  128;  Frankfort,  ii. 
37,  76;  Hippo,  i.  317;  Jerusalem,  253; 
Langres,  ii.  57 ;  Laodicea,  i.  317;  Late- 
ran,  283;  ii.  16;  Fourth  Lateran,  i.  442; 

.  ii.  97,  100 ;  London,  166 ;  Lyons,  i.  454-6 ; 
Meaux,  ii.  87 ;  Nice,  i.  251 ;  second  of 
Nice,  ii.  108 ;  Orange,  i.  306 ;  Oxford,  i. 
430 ;  Paris,  442  ;  ii.  32,  99,  166  ;  Philip- 
popolis,  i.  253 ;  Quiercy,  ii.  56,  60 ;  Rome, 

89,  92-4;  Sardinia,  i.  253;  Sens,  459; 
Soissons,  459 ;  Tarragona,  430 ;  Toledo, 
263;  Toulouse,  430 ;  Tyre,  253;  Trent, 

ii.  195,  sq. ;  Yalence,  i.  306;  ii.  57,  60; 
Vercelli,  89,  92,  94;  Yienne,  84,  95;  Ye- 
sel,  165;  Worcester,  113. 

Council ,  see  Synod. 

Councils ,  acts  of,  i.  31 ;  inspired  by  Holy 
Ghost,  324. 


Courayer ,  ii.  298. 

Cousin,  ii.  415,  442,  446;  on  Abelard,  L 
393. 

Covenants ,  theology  of,  ii.  173. 

Covenanters ,  ii.  431. 

Couard,  Wm.,  materialist,  ii.  371. 

Coivper ,  Wm.,  ii.  425. 

Cox,  ii.  445. 

Crakanthorp,  ii.  186,  297. 

Cramer ,  on  scholastic  questions,  ii.  19. 

Cranmer ,  ii.  182,  183,  185,  285;  Catechism, 
183;  Bible,  183. 

Cranz ,  ii.  391. 

Created  Light,  i.  474. 

Creation,  i.  133,  332,  337,  469;  ii.  481; 
prima  (immediata),  secunda  (mediata), 
339;  of  man,  263;  and  Trinity,  i.  334. 

Creatianism,  i.  151,  286';  ii.  13,  263. 

Creeds,  Athanasian,  i.  269  ;  Eusebian  (four), 
253  ;  Sirmian,  253  ;  Nicene,  251 ;  Prot- 
estant  view  of,  ii.  249 :  see  Apostles,  etc. 

Credere  Christo,  Deum,  Deo,  in  Deum,  ii. 
68. 

Crell,  J.,  ii.  210,  271. 

Crell,  N.  ii.  149. 

Crell,  S.,  ii.  210,  361. 

Cressy,  council,  ii.  56,  60. 

Crisp,  ii.  183,  191. 

Criticism ,  age  of,  ii.  373,  sq. ;  biblical,  i. 
424;  ii.  383. 

Crocius ,  ii.  175-6. 

Crombie,  ii.  434. 

Crosby,  A.,  ii.  519. 

Cross,  sign  of,  i.  180,  342  ;  as  a  symbol,  182. 

Crusader,  ii.  120. 

Crusius ,  ii.  388,  390,  471. 

Crypto- Calvinists,  ii.  149,  323. 

Crypto-Lutherans ,  ii.  323. 

Cudworth ,  ii.  180,  183,  193;  ii.  333. 

Culture,  ancient,  i.  50. 

Cultus ,  see  Worship. 

Culverwel,  ii.  183,  193. 

Cumberland ,  Bp.,  ii.  193,  224. 

Camming ,  John,  ii.  425. 

Cunningham,  ii.  434. 

Cup  withheld,  ii.  102,  308. 

Curcellceus,  ii.  213,  216;  on  atonement,  ii. 
355,  361. 

Curialists,  ii.  512. 

Curio,  ii.  212. 

Cusa,  i.  423. 

Cutter ,  Tim.,  ii.  448. 

Cyprian,  i.  63;  works,  71,  104;  ii.  84;  on 
tradition,  i.  97 ;  on  attributes  of  God,  i. 
110;  on  evil,  138;  on  the  fall,  165;  on 
redemption,  189;  grace,  191;  on  the 
church,  193,  195;  on  baptism,  197,  201; 
on  Lord’s  Supper,  205;  on  sacraments, 
212;  on  millennium,  216;  on  heaven  and 
hell,  226. 

Cyran,  St.,  abbot  of,  ii.  202. 

Cyril,  of  Alexandria,  i.  230,  234;  on  Holy 
Spirit,  263;  on  Nestorius,  275;  Julian, 
313;  miracles,  314;  Lord’s  Supper,  362. 

Cyril,  of  Jerusalem,  i.  14,  230,  233,  254-5 ; 
on  Holy  Spirit,  260,  282 ;  sin,  293  ;  attri¬ 
butes  of  God,  331;  on  angels,  341;  on 
devil’s  conversion,  342  ;  redemption,  349 ; 


532 


INDEX. 


baptism,  358;  Lord’s  Supper,  362,  364; 
chiliasm,  369. 

Cyril  Lucar ,  ii.  206 — 7. 

Cyrus ,  of  Alexandria,  i.  282. 

Czerski ,  ii.  458. 

Czengerina  Confessio ,  see  Hungarica. 

Czolbe,  ii.  475. 

Dagg,  ii.  446. 

Daille :  see  Dallceus. 

D'Ailly ,  ii.  33. 

D'Alembert ,  ii.  379. 

Dalgairus ,  ii.  426. 

Dallceus ,  ii.  180,  181,  279. 

Damascene :  see  Jo/m  o/  Damascus. 
Damascus,  Confession  of,  ii.  249. 

Damiani,  Peter,  ii.  75. 

Damianites,  i.  268.  * 

Damianus,  i.  268. 

Damm,  ii.  380. 

Dances  of  Death,  ii.  121. 

Daniel  on  Tatian,  i.  157  ;  on  tradition,  ii.  466. 
Dannhauer ,  ii.  151,  153. 

Danov,  ii.  383,  387. 

Dante ,  ii.  121,  122 ;  on  hell,  136,  138. 
Darby ites,  ii.  415. 

Daub ,  ii.  407,  408  ;  on  the  Trinity,  480 ;  the 
devil,  482 ;  the  atonement,  501. 

Daubeney ,  ii.  184. 

D'Aubigne ,  ii.  415. 

Davenant ,  John,  ii.  182,  187,  219,  285". 
Davenport ,  John,  ii.  192. 

David  of  Dinanto,  i.  403,  442,  443 ;  on  rev¬ 
elation,  423. 

Davidis ,  ii.  212. 

Davidson ,  S.,  ii.  423,  428. 

Davies ,  Samuel,  ii.  438. 

Davison ,  John,  ii.  384. 

Death ,  ii.  29,  164. 

Death  of  Christ ,  i.  179,  345  ;  and  the  devil, 
183  ;  necessary,  351 :  see  Atonement. 
itlif  “nrr,  i.  115. 

Declaratio  Thorunensis,  ii.  164,  168. 

Decrees ,  ii.  268  sq. :  see  Predestination. 
Decrees  of  Dort,  ii.  164,  168;  of  Trent,  196. 
Decretals ,  works  on,  i.  32. 

Decretum  Gratiani ,  ii.  97. 

De  Dominis ,  ii.  218. 

Defense  of  Christianity :  see  Apologetics , 

Evidences. 

De  Gasparin ,  ii.  416. 

Degrees  of  happiness ,  i.  224. 

Deified  flesh  of  Christ ,  ii.  344,  348. 

Deism ,  ii.  220  sq.,  378;  English,  223  sq., 
383  sq.,  474,  481 ;  French*  380. 

Delaney ,  ii.  384. 

Delbruck,  ii.  466. 

De//-/,  Synod,  ii.  179. 

Delictum,  i.  293. 

Delitzsch,  ii.  473,  502. 

Demiurge ,  i.  77,  102,  110,  137,  160. 

Demon  of  Socrates,  i.  144. 

Demonology ,  i.  138,  142,  342,  ii.  43,  341, 
482  :  see  Devil. 

Denck ,  ii.  211. 

Denison  Case ,  ii.  423,  427. 

Denmark ,  ii.  412. 

Denzinger ,  ii.  457. 


Dereser ,  ii.  455. 

Derham,  ii.  476. 

Descartes ,  ii.  178,  179,  221  on  being  of 
God,  333-34. 

Descensus  ad  Inferos,  i.  35,  187  ;  ii.  130, 
351,  354,  503. 

Design  of  Creation ,  i.  334 :  see 

Ztews  ea;  Machina,  i.  17 1. 

Deutsche  Christenthumsgesellschaft ,  ii.  390. 

“  Deutsche  Theologie ,”  i.  402,  405;  on  the 
fall,  ii.  25  ;  on  atonement,  52  ;  christology 
of,  40,  350;  on  creation,  472  ;  on  love 
of  God,  453. 

Dm/,  i.  138,  142,  145,  475,  ii.  341;  and 
atonement,  i,  183,  342,  345,  ii.  41 ;  per¬ 
sonal,  ii.  482  :  see  Demonology ,  Satan. 

Dpinnr  ii  4-^4- 

De  Wette,  i.  47,  49,  ii.  401,  406,  413,  465; 
on  revelation,  ii.  240 ;  on  Tauler  and 
Ruysbrock,  i.  404—5 ;  on  Deutsche  The- 
ologia,  405  ;  a  Kempis,  405  ;  christology, 
ii.  493  ;  on  atonement,  497,  500  ;  on  free¬ 
dom,  507. 

Dewey ,  ii.  441. 

De  Witt ,  ii.  451. 

A m/3oAof,  i.  142 :  see  Devil. 

Diaconi,  ii.  115. 

Dialectic  Scholasticism ,  i.  395,  ii.  35 :  see 
Scholasticism. 

AiadyKT],  i.  84. 

Dick,  John,  ii.  432. 

Dick,  Thos.,  ii.  434. 

Dickinson ,  Jonathan,  ii.  438. 

Diderot,  ii.  379. 

Didymus,  i  379  ;  on  conversion  of  the  devil, 
342  ;  on  atonement,  351. 

Dies  Irce,  ii.  121. 

Dietrich ,  ii.  382. 

A i/uoiplrai,  i.  275. 

Dinter,  ii.  398. 

Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  i.  275,  380,  432;  on 
being  of  God,  i.  325. 

Diognetus,  Epistle  to,  i.  67,  182. 

Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  i.  67,  329,  439:  see 
Pseudo- Dionysius. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  i.  230,  243,  245. 

Dionysius  of  Rome,  i.  243,  245. 

Dioscurus ,  i.  277. 

Diospolis,  synod,  i.  298,  352. 

Dippel,  ii.  222,  380,  496,  497. 

Dipping  of  Bread,  ii.  103. 

Disciplina  Arcani,  i.  63. 

Discipline,  Protestant,  ii.  299. 

Disney,  ii.  421. 

Disputations ,  Zurich,  ii.  160  ;  Baden,  160 ; 
Berne,  160. 

Divina  Commedia ,  ii.  121. 

Divorce,  ii.  325. 

Docetism,  L  55,  57,  173,  270,  281;  ii.  31, 
344,  348. 

Doctrinal  Theology ,  works  on,  and  history  ofj 
i.  41. 

Doctrines ,  History  of,  defined,  i.  13  ;  relation 
to  other  branches  of  theology,  etc.,  15-22 ; 
importance  of,  23  ;  mode  of  treatment, 
23  ;  division  into  periods,  26-30  ;  sources, 
30-36  ;  works  upon,  36-44. 

Doddridge ,  ii.  420. 


,  INDEX. 


533 


Doderlein,  ii.  383,  386. 

Bods  worth ,  ii.  427. 

Dodwell,  ii.  227,  298;  on  immortality,  371. 

Dominicans ,  ii.  30,  279. 

Dcedes,  ii.  413. 

Dogma ,  meaning  of,  i.  13. 

Donaiists,  i.  229,  240,  352,  357  ;  ii.  291. 

Donne ,  ii;  182,  186. 

Doolittel ,  ii.  190. 

Donum  superadditum,  i.  290;  ii.  19,  251. 

Dorner,  cited,  i.  47,  57,  58,  182,  213 ;  on 
Philo,  115,  117;  Tertullian,  1 2  2  ;  Origen, 
124;  Nicene  creed,  252;  Nestorius,  277  ; 
Monothelites,  284;  John  of  Damascus, 
382;  Nihilianism,  ii.  38 ;  Soteriology,  ii. 
53 ;  Schwenkfeld,  348 ;  Servetus,  349  ; 
works,  410. 

Dort,  Synod,  ii.  164,  168;  on  authority  of 
Scripture,  250  ;  on  original  righteousness, 
253 ;  original  sin,  259  ;  supralapsarianism, 
274-5. 

Dos,  ii.  134. 

Dos  and  beatitudo,  in  Aquinas,  ii  134. 

Dotes  of  blessedness ,  ii.  132. 

Dositheus,  i.  54. 

Dove,  E.,  ii.  429,  434. 

Dove  of  Noah,  i.  199. 

Doxologies,  i.  171. 

D'Oyly,  ii.  419. 

Drelincourt,  ii.  181. 

Dresden  Consensus ,  ii.  149. 

Drobicius,  ii.  371. 

Drobisch,  ii.  409. 

Dualism,  i.  142,  330,  333. 

Du  Bose,  ii.  279. 

Duchoborzi,  ii.  460. 

Duffield,  ii.  444-5. 

Du  Hamel ,  ii.  199. 

Dulia,  ii.  74. 

Dulon ,  ii.  411. 

A vvapig  viptorov,  i.  125. 

Duncker ,  i.  133. 

Duns ,  see  Scotus. 

Duoihelites ,  i.  284. 

Durandus ,  abbot,  ii.  96. 

Durandus,  of  St.  Pour^ain,  i.  399,  401 ;  on 
knowing  God,  439  ;  adoptionism,  ii.  37  ; 
festival  of  conception,  32  ;  transubstantia- 
tion,  104,  106. 

Dury  (Duraeus),  ii.  219. 

Dusanus,  see  Musculus,  ii.  170. 

Dutch  Reformed,  in  IT.  S.,  ii.  450. 

Dwight,  Timothy,  ii.  440. 

Eadie,  ii.  434. 

Eadmer ,  i.  455. 

Eastern  Church,  i.  453.  See  Greek. 

Ebed  Jesu,  i.  385. 

Eberhard,  J.  A.,  ii.  382. 

Ebionitism,  i.  20,  55-6,  75,  117,  143,  170, 
173,  178,  213-14;  ii.  344,  489. 

Ebrard,  ii.  502  ;  on  Lutheranism  and  Cal¬ 
vinism.  ii.  141 ;  Zwingle,  312-13  ;  CEco- 
lampadius,  314 ;  Schweizer,  508 ;  the 
church,  511;  sacraments,  514-16. 

Ecclesia.  See  Church. 

Ecdesia  militans,  triumphans,  ii.  291 ;  visi- 
bilis,  invisibilis,  299. 


Ecclesiastical  Power,  ii.  291 ;  see  Church ,  etc, 
Ecclesiola  in  ecclesia ,  ii.  510. 

Eck,  ii.  144,  147,  197-8. 

Eckart,  Master,  i.  402 ;  pantheistic,  443  ;  on 
the  Trinity,  465 ;  grace,  ii.  67 ;  hell,  132, 
137. 

Eckermann ,  ii.  383,  387. 

Eclecticism,  French,  ii.  415. 

Economy,  the,  i.  131. 

Economy  of  Redemption,  i.  188,  229;  ii.  251, 
288,  503. 

Edelmann,  ii.  380. 

Edict  of  Religion,  ii.  388-9. 

Edmunds,  J.  W.,  ii.  452. 

Education,  theories  of,  ii.  486. 

Edward  VI.,  ii.  166. 

Edwards,  John,  iL  190. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  ii.  414,  435-6. 

Edwards ,  Jonathan,  jr.,  ii.  435, 439. 

Edwards,  Justin,  ii.  448. 

Edwards,  Thos.,  ii.  420. 

Egilo,  abbot,  ii.  91, 

Eglin,  ii.  175,  176. 

Ehrenfeuchter ,  ii.  410. 

Eichhorn,  ii.  385. 

'E idog,  i.  268. 

’Vipappevy,  i.  155. 

Einsiedeln,  reform  in,  ii.  159. 

"E/cdecnf,  i.  283. 

'ViKukyaa,  ekkT^.  tcadoTuKy,  i.  194. 

’’EuTre/u'ipi.c,  i.  265. 

'EKnopevoig,  i.  265. 

Eleesaites,  i.  57. 

Electi  (Manichees),  i.  352. 

Election,  ii.  60,  201,  275,  307. 

Elements ,  visible  in  the  sacraments,  ii.  116. 
Eleonora  von  Merlau,  ii.  372. 

Elevation  of  host,  ii.  100,  323. 

Eliot,  John,  ii.  193. 

Elipandus,  of  Toledo,  ii.  35,  37. 

Elizabeth,  St.  L  427. 

Elizabeth,  of  England,  ii.  166,  182 
Ellicott ,  ii.  423,  429. 

Elliott ,  ii.  450,  519. 

Ellis,  ii.  384. 

Elster,  ii.  380. 

Elucidarium,  ii.  126-7,  130,  131,  134,  186, 
137. 

Ely,  E.  S.,  ii.  443. 

Emanation,  i.  117. 

Emerson ,  R.  W.  ii.  447. 

Emlyn ,  ii.  213,  441. 

Emmerich,  ii.  414. 

Emmons,  iL  436, 439. 

Emory,  ii.  450. 

Enchanted  World  (Bekker’s),  ii.  178,  341. 
Encyclopedia,  Theological,  ii.  406. 

End  of  Creation,  i.  334.  See  Providence. 
End  of  World,  i.  224,  373;  ii.  119. 
Endemann,  ii.  378. 

Energies  in  Christ,  i.  283.  See  Will. 

Engel,  ii.  520. 

Engelhardt ,  on  mysticism,  i.  403 ;  on  Ruys- 
broek,  404. 

England,  Bp.,  ii.  459. 

England ,  church  of,  ii.  412  ;  on  the  church, 
296;  against  Rome,  297;  foreign  orders, 
297  ;  baptism,  366,  368. 


534 


INDEX. 


England ,  theology  in,  ii.  182,  416,  423 ;  phi¬ 
losophy,  423. 

English  Deism ,  ii.  222-23,  380. 

Enlightenment ,  period  of,  ii.  374;  see  Ration¬ 
alism. 

Enoch ,  Book  of,  i.  216. 

Enthusiasts,  ii.  156,  161,  305. 

Ephesus,  councils,  i.  275,  298;  Robber’s  Sy¬ 
nod,  278. 

Ephraem  the  Syrian ,  i.  230,  233,  282 ;  on 
sin,  293. 

Epicureans,  i.  107. 

Epiphanes ,  i.  59. 

Epiphanius ,  i.  132,  230,  233,  246;  procession 
of  the  Spirit,  263  ;  inspiration,  322  ;  res- 

.  urrection,  370. 

Episcopalians,  ii.  512;  in  America,  443, 

Episcopacy  in  England,  ii.  291.  See  England. 

Episcopius,  ii.  213,  214,  215;  on  supralap- 
sarians,  274. 

Epistola  Episc.Hispan.  ad  Episc.  Galliae ,  ii.  37. 

Erasmus,  i.  407  ;  ii.  197,  198. 

Erastianism ,  ii.  299. 

Erdmann,  ii.  409. 

Erigena,  i.  387,  389,  390,  403  ;  his  rational¬ 
ism,  416;  on  tradition,  421;  Scripture, 
422,  423;  interpretation,  428;  on  know¬ 
ing  God,  438 ;  pantheism,  441,  442 ;  on 
Trinity,  457,  458 ;  on  creation,  469 ; 
anthropology,  ii.  13,  14 ;  on  the  Mosaic 
narrative,  19  ;  on  sin,  24;  sin  caused  the 
difference  of  sex,  29  ;  on  ideal  Christ,  39  ; 
on  predestination,  56,  58  ;  Lord’s  Supper, 
89,  91 ;  the  resurrection,  1.22  ;  on  future 
state,  132,  133  ;  torments  of  hell,  137  ; 
restitution  of  all  things,  138. 

Ermangardus,  i.  473. 

Ernesti,  i.  37  ;  ii.  383,  385,  406,  498. 

Er sldne,  Ralph,  Eben.,  John,  ii.  431,  433. 

Erzberger,  ii.  324. 

Eschatology,  i.  368,  213,  ii.  119,  370,  509, 
517  ;  and  art,  121  ;  revision  of,  522. 

Eschenmayer ,  ii.  400. 

Essays  and  Beviews,  ii.  424,  429. 

Ess :  see  Van  Ess. 

Essentia,  i.  264. 

Estius,  ii.  280. 

Eternal  generation ,  i.  250,  ii.  335 :  see  Gen¬ 
eration. 

Eternal  life,  ii.  517. 

Eternal  punishment,  i.  224,  ii.  138,  519:  see 
Eschatology. 

Eternity  of  God,  i.  445. 

Ether ius,  ii.  37. 

Ethics,  Christian,  ii.  405;  in  England,  417; 
separated  from  theology,  150. 

Ethnicism,  i.  54. 

’E vayye'kiov,  i.  85. 

Eucharist,  i.  204,  361,  ii.  89:  see  Lord's 

Supper. 

Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  ii.  322. 

Eudoxius,  i.  272. 

Eugene  III.,  i.  456,  460. 

Eugene  IV.,  ii.  82,  110,  113,  114;  on  god¬ 
fathers,  87. 

Eulogius  of  Gees  area,  i.  298. 

Eunomians ,  i.  255,  256;  baptism  of,  361. 

Eunomius,  i.  272,  328. 


Eusebians ,  i.  252,  253  :  see  Arians. 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  on  Artemon,  i.  62 ;  on 
Beryl,  132;  on  chiliasm,  215,  230,  251; 
his  confession,  251;  on  the  Son,  254-5; 
defense  of  Christ,  313 ;  on  the  canon, 
317  ;  on  inspiration,  320  ;  on  worship  of 
angels,  339 ;  on  Lord’s  Supper,  365  ;  on 
the  three  offices  of  Christ,  ii.  50. 

Eusebius,  Bruno,  ii.  96. 

Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum,  i.  278. 

Eusebius  of  Emisa,  i.  231. 

Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  i.  230,  231,  251. 
Eustathius  of  Sebaste,  i.  259. 

Euthymius  Zigabenus ,  i.  383,  385  ;  on  in¬ 
spiration,  423  ;  ii.  26. 

Eutychianism,  i.  229,  277,  ii.  344. 

Eutychius (Eustachius),  399:  see Bonaventura. 
Euty chios  on  resurrection,  i.  372. 

Evangelical  Alliance,  ii.  412. 

Evangelical  Party  in  England,  ii.  423,  425. 
Evangelische  Kirchenzeitung,  ii.  406. 
Evangelium  ceternum,  i.  423,  ii.  J 19. 
Evidences ,  the,  i  414,  ii.  382,  424;  English 
works  on,  384:  see  Apologetics. 

Evil,  i.  137,  161  sq.,  337  ;  necessary,  ii. 

482  :  see  Theodicy,  Providence. 

Exaltation,  state  of,  ii.  351. 

Exegesis,  ii.  170,  383:  see  Bible. 

Exegesis  perspicua,  etc.,  ii.  149. 
Excommunication ,  ii.  299  :  see  Discipline. 
Exercise  scheme,  ii.  436. 

Exiles ,  Marian,  ii.  182. 

Ex  Omnibus,  Bull,  ii.  202. 

Exorcism,  ii.  341,  484. 

Exorcistce,  ii.  115. 

Expiation,  ii.  500, 

Extent  of  Atonement,  ii.  351,  356-7  :  see 
Atonement. 

Extreme  unction,  ii.  112,  325  ;  repetition  of, 
113. 

Ezra,  i.  84. 

’  Faber,  ii.  147,  197,  198. 

Faber,  F.  W.,  ii.  426. 

Faber,  G.  S.,  ii.  422,  507,  519. 

Fabri,  ii.  481. 

Facundus ,  i.  37. 

Fairbairn,  ii.  434. 

Faith,  i.  188,  ii.  67,  281,  289 ;  and  baptism, 
365 ;  and  philosophy,  454  ;  and  works, 
503. 

Fall  of  angels,  i  341,  343. 

Fall  of  man,  i.  159-167,  292,  ii.  22,  255  ; 

narrative  of,  162,  163 :  see  Sin,  Adam,  etc. 
Family  sins,  ii.  27. 

Fareira,  ii.  196. 

Far  el,  ii.  318. 

Farmer ,  Hugh,  ii.  467. 

Fasting,  ii.  325  :  see  Ascetics. 

Fathers,  collections  on,  i.  33 ;  Platonism  oC 
51 ;  theology  of,  63. 

Faucher ,  Le,  ii.  274. 

Faustus,  i.  290,  306. 

Pave,  La,  ii.  225. 

Faye,  Antoine  la,  ii.  175. 

Feathers  Tavern  Assoc.,  ii.  422. 

Febronianism,  ii.  455,  512. 

Feder ,  ii.  353. 


INDEX. 


535 


Federal  method,  ii.  170,  173,  174. 

Felix  of  Urgella,  ii.  35,  37. 

Felix  culpa ,  ii.  54. 

Felgenhauer,  ii.  371. 

Fell,  ii.  468. 

Fenelon,  ii.  204,  205,  476. 

Fenner ,  ii.  186. 

Fermentarii,  ii.  108. 

Fern ,  Henry,  ii.  297,  298. 

Ferrier ,  ii.  433. 

Festival  of  Conception ,  ii.  32  :  see  Immaculate. 
Feuardentius,  ii.  199. 

Feuerbach ,  ii.  411,  475,  488;  on  religion,  ii. 
462. 

Feuerborn ,  ii.  288,  353. 

Fichte,  J.  C.,  ii.  398  sq. 

Fichte,  I.  H.  ii.  400,  408  ;  christology,  491, 
521 ;  on  immortality,  521. 

Ficinus,  i.  415  :  see  Marsilius. 

Fides  sola  jusiificat,  ii,  281,  284:  see  Faith. 
Fides  formata ,  informis,  ii.  68  ;  qua,  quae 
creditur,  68. 

Fidus ,  i.  198. 

Rd.,  ii.  182,  187,  296. 

Fdioque ,  i.  263,  454. 

Films  adoptivus,  ii.  38. 

Fines  for  punishment,  ii.  111. 

Final  method,  ii.  152. 

Finney ,  ii.  445,  505. 

Fire ,  purifying,  i.  223,  373,  ii,  126  :  see 
Purgatory. 

Firmin ,  ii.  213. 

Fischer ,  K.  P.,  ii.  409. 

Ftsh,  a  symbol,  i.  199. 

Fisher,  see  Piscator. 

Fisher,  Edward,  ii.  431. 

Fiske,  W.,  ii.  440. 

Fistulce  eucharisticce ,  ii.  103. 

Fitch,  ii.  440. 

Flacius,  ii.  149 ;  on  sin,  261-2  ;  on  obedience 
of  Christ,  358. 

Flaccus  Aibinus,  i.  387. 

Flagellants,  i.  411  ;  ii.  52,  70,  84,  111. 

F  laming  ians,  ii.  209. 

Flavel,  ii.  183,  190. 

F lathe,  i.  384. 

Fleas,  when  created,  ii.  339. 

Fleetwood  on  rebaptism,  ii.  369. 

Fleming,  Caleb,  ii  421. 

Fleming,  Robert,  ii.  192. 

Flesh  of  Christ  deified,  ii.  344,  348. 

Fletcher,  John,  ii.  393. 

Floerke,  ii.  519. 

Florence ,  councils,  i.  454 ;  ii  88,  108,  110, 
114,  128. 

Florus,  magister,  ii.  56. 

Fludd,  ii.  194. 

Fock  on  Socinianism,  ii.  255,  350,  359. 
Folioth,  see  Robert  of  Melun. 

Follen,  ii.  446. 

Folmar,  ii.  37,  39 ;  on  concomitance,  103, 
Fomes,  ii.  84. 

Fonseca,  ii.  280. 

Forbes,  Alex.,  ii  427. 

Forbes ,  Wm.,  ii.  186,  285. 

Forbes  Case,  ii.  423. 

Foreknowledge ,  i.  191.  See  Predestination. 
Forer ,  ii.  347. 


Forerunners  of  Reformation,  ii.  72,  75. 

Form  of  Eucharist,  ii.  324. 

Formal  Principle  of  Protestantism,  ii.  141, 
228. 

Formula  Consensus,  ii.  164,  169, 180;  on  au¬ 
thority  of  Confessions,  250  ;  extent  of  Re¬ 
demption,  276;  obedience  of  Christ,  358. 

Formula  Concordia,  ii.  149,  164;  de  tertio 
usu  legis,  ii.  248 ;  on  symbols,  250  ;  orig¬ 
inal  sin,  258  ;  Flacianism,  262  ;  predestina¬ 
tion,  272  ;  universality  of  grace,  275  ;  irre¬ 
sistible  grace,  277  ;  justification,  282;  the 
Mass,  311 ;  Lord’s  Supper,  316-20  ;  the 
unio  personalis,  347 ;  against  LEpinus, 
352-3  ;  active  and  passive  obedience,  358. 

Formula  M anpoorixoc,  i.  253. 

Formula  Philippopolitana ,  i.  253. 

Foscarari,  ii.  196. 

Foster,  James,  ii.  227. 

Foster,  John,  ii.  423,  429. 

Fox,  George,  ii.  217. 

France,  ii.  412  ;  Roman  Catholics  in,  ii.  454. 

Francis  of  Sales,  ii.  204 ;  on  euoharist,  224. 

Franciscans,  ii.  30,  280. 

Francke,  ii.  158,  376,  388. 

F'ank,  Sebastian,  ii.  154,  155,  284;  on  Scrip¬ 
ture,  237  ;  sin,  262;  freedom,  271  ;  crea¬ 
tion,  339 ;  redemption,  359. 

Frankfort,  Synod,  ii.  37,  76. 

Pros  sen,  ii.  199. 

Fratricelli,  i.  384 ;  ii.  119.  ■ 

Fredegis  of  Tours,  on  inspiration,  i.  425  ;  cre¬ 
ation,  L  470. 

Frederick  I,  ii.  72. 

Frederick  III.,  Elector,  ii.  149,  164. 

Frederick  the  Great,  ii.  379. 

Frederick  William  Ifi  ii.  389. 

Free  Church,  Scotch,  ii.  430. 

freedom,  L  155,  224,  293 ;  ii.  18,  25,  268, 
503. 

Free-thinkers,  ii.  220,  374. 

Freidauk ,  ii.  72. 

Frelinghausen ,  J,  A.,  ii.  378. 

Frelinghuysen ,  ii,  451. 

French  Feists,  ii.  380;  materialists,  222;  phi¬ 
losophy  of,  415. 

Fresenius,  ii.  392. 

Frey,  ii.  464. 

Friedlieb,  ii.  152. 

Friends  of  Light,  ii.  410. 

Friends ,  Society  of)  ii  208,  216,  218;  in 
America,  217. 

Fries ,  ii.  402. 

Fritzsche  (Ahasv.),  ii.  392. 

Fronde,  ii.  423,  426. 

Fvlgentius  of  Ruspe,  i.  230,  238,  306,  334; 
ii.  109  ;  on  angels,  i.  339. 

Fuller,  Andrew,  ii.  423,  429. 

Fuller,  Thos.,  ii.  187. 

Fidlo.  See  Peter. 

Fureiro,  ii.  196. 

Furness,  ii.  442. 

Fusslin,  i.  384. 

Gabler,  ii.  409. 

Gabriel,  see  Biel. 

Gale,  Theoph.,  ii.  183,  191. 

Gallic  Confession  on  Purgatory,  326,  327,. 


536 


INDEX. 


Gallitzin ,  ii.  459. 

Galluppi ,  ii.  455. 

Gansfort,  see  WesseZ. 

Garissol ,  ii.  181. 

Gasparin ,  de,  ii.  416,  469,  511. 

Gass,  on  Protestant  scholasticism,  ii.  154; 
on  Calixt,  158;  on  Calvin,  165;  on  Pola- 
nus,  172;  on  Arminianism,  216;  on  Cal¬ 
vin,  329  ;  Luther’s  Christology,  350,  502. 

Gass7ier,  ii.  484. 

Gastrell,  Bp.,  ii.  213. 

Gaiti,  ii.  199. 

Gaunilo,  i.  432,  434. 

Gaup,  ii.  407. 

Gaussen,  ii.  414,  416,  469. 

Gay ,  ii.  441. 

Gazzaniga ,  ii.  455. 

Gelasius  /.,  ,i.  309,  367. 

Gemistius  Pletho ,  i.  408. 

Germanics,  i.  379. 

General  Councils ,  first,  i.  251 ;  second,  252, 
258;  third,  275,  276;  fourth,  276  ;  fifth, 
280;  sixth,  282. 

General  and  Special  History  of  Doctrines,  i. 
25. 

General  Judgment ,  i.  373  ;  ii.  124,  213,  221, 
370,  373. 

General  and  Special  Providence ,  i.  336 :  see 
Providence. 

Generation ,  eternal,  i.  124,  257,  332,  463, 
ii.  335  ;  see  Eternal. 

Genetic  method  of  Oetinger ,  ii.  389. 

Tevvr/oie;,  i.  265. 

Geneva ,  Catechism ,  ii.  164,  168  ;  church  in, 
ii.  412. 

Genii ,  i.  139. 

Gennadius ,  i.  230,  237,  287,  408. 

Gentiles ,  ii.  211. 

Genus  idiomaticum,  apotelesmaticum,  auche- 
maticum  (in  Person  of  Christ),  ii.  352. 

Geoffrey  of  Yendome,  on  extreme  unction, 
ii.  113. 

Georg  ii,  i.  127. 

Georgius  of  Laodicea,  i.  255. 

Gerardi,  ii.  209. 

Gerber t  (Sylvester  II.),  i.  389 ;  on  Lord’s 
Supper,  ii.  89,  91,  92. 

Gerhard,  John,  ii.  150,  152  ;  on  the  fall, 
264,  265  ;  anthropology,  263  ;  tradu- 
cianism,  264;  ordo  salutis,  288;  on  crea¬ 
tion,  339 ;  christology,  352  ;  offices  of 
Christ,  353  ;  on  obedience  of  Christ,  357  ; 
on  baptism,  365,  367. 

Gerhard  Grooty  i.  410. 

Gerhard  Zerbolt,  i.  431. 

Gerharty  ii.  447. 

German  Catholicism,  ii.  454. 

German  Reformed  Theology,  ii.  175. 

German  Reformed  in  America,  ii.  443,  450. 

Germany ,  Roman  Catholics  in,  ii.  454. 

German ,  ii.  468. 

Geroch,  ii.  39. 

Gersen ,  i,  405. 

Gerson ,  i.  402,  406,  423  ;  on  inspiration, 
427 ;  on  knowing  God,  440  ;  theistic, 
444 ;  psychology,  ii.  15  ;  image  of  God, 
*  20  ;  on  immaculate  conception,  33  ;  Lord’s 

1  Supper,  101  ;  on  purgatorial  fire,  126,  127. 


Geruler ,  ii.  168. 

Gibbon  on  Petavius,  ii.  199. 

Gibson,  ii.  296,  297. 

Gichtel,  ii.  156,  301. 

Gieseler,  cited,  i.  14,  39,  52,  58,  91,  192;  on 
millenarianism,  215;  on  Julianists,  281 ; 
on  Apocrypha,  318  ;  on  redemption,  348  ; 
on  theories  of  Lord’s  Supper,  362 ;  on 
Durandus,  399 ;  on  Ficinus,  ii.  17 ;  on 
seven  sacraments,  79;  works,  448. 

Giessen  Divines ,  ii.  351. 

Gilbert  of  Poitiers,  i.  391,  394 :  on  Trinity, 
457,  460. 

Gilbert  of  Nogent,  ii.  136,  137. 

Gill ,  John,  ii.  420. 

Gillert,  ii.  381. 

Gillespie ,  Geo.,  ii.  185,  298. 

Gillespie,  Thos.,  ii.  431,  433. 

Gioberti,  ii.  455. 

Gislebert  on  Jews,  i.  383. 

Gladstone ,  W.  E.,  ii.  426. 

Glarus,  reform  in,  ii.  159. 

Glas,  John,  ii.  431. 

Glorified  flesh  of  Christ,  ii.  344,  348. 

Tv&olq,  i.  98,  190. 

Gnosis ,  Gnosticism,  i.  20,  55,  58,  63,  75,  83, 
136,  149,  165,  178,  213,  217,  223,  240, 
330,  383,  390;  ii.  122,  344. 

Gnostics ,  classified,  i.  58 ;  on  penalty,  i.  112  ; 
on  Logos,  118. 

Gobarus,  Stephen,  i.  38. 

Gochy  i.  410. 

God,  attributes,  i.  331,  445,  ii.  335;  being 
of,  i.  98,  325,  432,  ii.  333,  476 ;  nature  of) 

i.  327,  441 ;  unity,  330. 

Godfathers  and  Godmothers ,  ii.  87. 

God-Man ,  i.  170,  ii.  351:  see  Christology. 

Gomarus,  ii.  215,  274. 

Gonet,  ii.  199. 

Good  works :  see  Works. 

Goode ,  W.y  ii.  184;  on  foreign  orders,  296. 

Good, winy  Thos.,  ii.  183,  190,  298. 

Gorham  Case ,  ii.  423,  427. 

GorreSy  ii.  456. 

Goschel,  ii.  409,  502,  521. 

Gospels ,  i.  44,  ii.  489. 

Gospels,  spurious,  i.  85 

Gossner,  ii.  456. 

Gothe,  ii.  513. 

Gottfried  of  Yendome,  ii.  77. 

Gottschalcky  i.  383,  ii.  56  ;  on  predestination, 
67,  60. 

Gotze,  ii.  381. 

Government  of  World ,  i.  334,  469,  ii.  337. 

Grace ,  ii.  268  sq. ;  applied,  63 ;  irresistible, 

ii.  277  ;  want  of,  i.  193,  352,  ii.  303,  513; 
and  freedom,  i.  301 ;  ii.  507. 

Gratia  gratis  dans ,  gratis  data,  gratum  fa- 
ciens,  ii.  64,  65. 

Gratian,  ii.  97. 

Gratry ,  ii.  458. 

Grebel,  ii.  209. 

Greek  Church ,  i.  454  ;  in  middle  ages,  384, 
ii.  25;  in  Reformation  era,  142,  206;  in 
Russia,  459. 

Greek  Church  on  marriage,  ii.  117;  on  tran- 
substantiation,  107  ;  on  purgatory,  127, 
128;  the  Scripture,  233,  234;  ou  sacra- 


INDEX. 


537 


ments  (Conf.  Arthod.),  203  ;  on  the  mass, 
311;  the  cup,  323;  intermediate  state, 
327. 

Greek  language ,  revived,  i.4  11. 

Green,  Ashbel,  ii.  445. 

Gregg ,  ii.  470. 

Gregory  the  Great,  i.  230,  238  ;  on  Agnoe- 
tism,  281 ;  traducianism,  289,  290 ;  on 
sin,  292  ;  the  fall,  292 :  sin  and  grace, 
309;  inspiration,  321;  on  councils,  324; 
on  knowledge  of  God,  329  ;  on  worship 
of  angels,  338  ;  on  death  of  Christ,  351 ; 
the  church,  355  ;  eucharist,  367 ;  purga¬ 
tory,  373,  375. 

Gregory  VII.,  i.  411  ;  on  Berengar,  ii.  89, 
91,  192. 

Gregory  XIII.,  ii.  199. 

Gregory  XV.  on  immaculate  conception,  ii. 
263. 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  i.  230,  232 ;  on  Holy 
Spirit,  258-9;  on  Trinity,  264,270;  on 
Apollinaris,  273  ;  on  sin,  293,  297  ;  coun¬ 
cils,  324 ;  being  of  God,  325 ;  attributes, 
331 ;  the  Trinity  in  creation,  334;  angels, 
338,  341 ;  redemption  and  the  devil,  346 ; 
baptism,  358 ;  Lord’s  Supper,  365 ;  res¬ 
urrection,  370  ;  purifying  fire,  374;  future 
state,  376  ;  heaven,  377;  remission  of 
punishment,  380. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  i.  230,  232;  on  dogma, 
14 ;  Holy  Spirit,  258  ;  procession  of  Holy 
Spirit,  263,  265  ;  Trinity,  264 ;  Apollinaris, 
273,  281-2;  traducianism,  288,  290;  sin, 
291,  293  ;  conversion  of  devil,  342  ;  re¬ 
demption  from  devil,  346 ;  extent  of 
atonement,  351 ;  baptism,  358  ;  eucharist, 
363;  resurrection,  370;  purgatory,  374; 
heaven,  377  ;  future  punishment,  379. 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus ,  i.  230,  245. 

Gregory  of  Valentia,  ii.  280,  347. 

Gribaldi,  ii.  211. 

Griesbach ,  ii.  388. 

Griffin ,  Ed.,  ii.  437,  445. 

Griffin ,  George,  ii.  445. 

Grindal,  ii.  182,  184. 

Groningen  School,  ii.  413. 

Groot,  i.  410. 

Groot ,  de,  ii.  413. 

Grossman ,  ii.  164. 

Grotius ,  ii.  214-15,  222,  498;  atonement,  ii. 
355,  360. 

Grundtvig ,  ii.  412. 

Gruner,  J.  F.,  ii.  383,  387. 

Grynceus,  ii.  164,  174. 

Guardian  angels ,  i.  139,  476. 

Gubernatio  generalis ,  specialis,  i.  335. 

Gilder ,  ii.  503. 

Guericke ,  ii.  453. 

Guibert  of  Nogent,  ii.  136,  137. 

Guido  de  Bres,  ii.  167. 

Guitmund ,  ii.  96. 

Guizot ,  ii.  414. 

Gidielmus,  see  WiUiam. 

Gunther,  ii.  454,  457. 

Guntrad ,  ii.  91. 

Gurtler,  ii.  174. 

Guthrie ,  ii.  435. 

Guy  on,  Mdme.  de,  ii.  205. 


Hackett ,  ii.  448. 

Hades ,  i.  187,  221,  373,  376;  ii.  520. 

Hdfeli ,  ii.  412. 

Haffenreffer,  ii.  150,  152,  242,  339. 

Hafner ,  ii.  414. 

Hahn,  A.,  ii.  397. 

Hahn ,  J.  M.,  ii.  518. 

Haldane ,  ii.  415,  435. 

Hales ,  see  Alexander. 

Hales,  John,  ii.  187. 

Hales ,  Wm.,  ii.  422. 

Halifax ,  ii.  227,  384,  418. 

Half-way  Covenant ,  ii.  192. 

Hall,  Bp.  Jos.,  ii.  182,  188,  297,  298 
Hall,  Robert,  ii.  423. 

Halle,  school  of,  ii.  388. 

Haller ,  ii.  160,  384. 

Halyburton,  ii.  192,  227. 

Hamaan,  i.  25. 

Hamel,  du,  199,  206,  280. 

Hammerken,  see  Kempis. 

Hamilton ,  Jas.,  ii.  425. 

Hamilton ,  Sir  Wm.,  ii.  433. 

Hammond,  Henry,  ii.  186,  297,  298. 
Hampden ,  R.  D.,  ii.  427. 

Hampden  Controversy ,  ii.  423. 

Hands,  laying  on  of,  ii.  114. 

Hardenberg ,  Albert,  ii.  149. 

Hare ,  Julius  C.,  ii.  428. 

Harms'  TJieses ,  ii.  405. 

Harmsen,  see  Arminius. 

Hartenstein ,  ii.  409. 

Hartley,  David,  ii.  422. 

Harris,  John,  ii.  424,  429. 

Hose,  ii.  410,  514;  cited,  L  16,  57,  58,  70; 
on  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  232  ;  Jerome,  235  ; 
scholasticism,  389  ;  the  Lombard,  395  ;  on 
Eckart,  403;  Hus,  ii.  73;  Nicolai,  381; 
Religion,  462  ;  Trinity,  480 ;  Christology, 
494. 

Hasenbroeck ,  ii.  413. 

Hasenkamp,  ii.  497,  502. 

Hasse's  Anselm,  i.  393  ;  ii.  46. 

Hdvernick ,  ii.  472. 

Hawarden ,  ii.  213. 

Hawks,  ii.  449. 

Hazelius,  ii.  450. 

Heaven,  i.  224,  376  ;  ii.  130. 

Heathen,  virtues  of  ii.  256,  277. 

Heathenism ,  history  of,  i.  20 ;  forms  of,  55. 
Heber,  Bp.,  ii.  425. ' 

Hebraists,  ii.  245. 

Hebrews ,  Epistle,  i.  318. 

Heerbrand,  Jacob,  ii.  150,  152. 

Hegel  (and  Hegelians),  ii.  39,  407  sq.,  469 ; 
on  scholasticism,  i.  407  ;  on  Anselm, 
435  ;  religion,  462  ;  being  of  God,  477  ; 
Trinity,  480  ;  sin,  485,  487  ;  christology, 
492;  atonement,  501;  freedom,  507;  on 
sacraments,  516. 

Hegel  of  Gera,  on  creation,  ii.  339. 
Hegesippus,  i.  54. 

Hegner ,  ii.  491. 

Heidanus ,  ii.  170,  174,  176,  179. 

Heidegger,  H.,  ii.  168,  170,  173,  180,  300  ;  on 
the  fall,  264;  on  angels,  342;  on  crea¬ 
tion,  339. 

Heidelberg  Catechism,  ii.  164,  165,  175/  on 


538 


INDEX. 


extent  of  atonement,  275;  faith,  284;  sa¬ 
craments,  305 ;  the  mass,  307  ;  the  Sup¬ 
per,  319;  ubiquity  of  Christ,  346;  atone¬ 
ment,  356-7  ;  obedience,  357. 

Heilmann,  ii.  383,  386. 

Heinich ,  John,  ii.  102. 

Heinrich,  ii.  388  ;  on  Chemnitz,  151;  Zach- 
ariae,  386;  Doderlein,  386,  387. 

Heinrich's  Bel.  Phil.,  ii.  408. 

Hell,  i.  224,  376;  ii.  130,  etc. 

Helldring,  ii.  413. 

Helmstddt  Divines,  ii.  288. 

Helvetic  Confessions,  ii.  163,  164;  on  inter¬ 
pretation,  234,  235 ;  creed  of  Damascus, 
249;  original  siu,  258;  freedom,  272; 
faith,  284 ;  church,  292 ;  the  priesthood, 
294;  sacraments,  305;  the  mass,  311; 
purgatory,  326 ;  Trinity,  330  ;  communi- 
catio  idiomatum,  346 ;  departed  spirits, 
370,  371. 

Helvetius ,  ii.  379. 

Hemmert,  Yan,  ii.  467. 

Hemming,  Nicolas,  ii.  152,  175,  176. 

Hemmenway,  ii.  438. 

Henderson,  Alex.,  ii.  182,  185,  429. 

Henhofer,  ii.  456. 

Hengstenberg ,  ii.  406,  472. 

Henke,  cited,  ii.  383,  387,  463,  468,  475,  486, 
498,  504,  516,  518. 

Hennel,  ii.  475. 

Henoticon,  i.  280. 

Henriciani,  i.  384. 

Henry  VIII.  vs.  Luther,  ii.  309. 

Henry  von  Gent,  i.  439. 

Henry  of  Lausanne,  i.  384. 

Henry,  Matthew,  ii.  183,  191. 

Heppe,  on  Haffenreffer,  ii.  152 ;  on  Cocceius, 
173;  German  Reformed  Theology,  175; 
Keckermann,  176;  Melancthon,  242. 

Heraclius,  L  282. 

Herbart  and  his  school,  ii.  409. 

Herbert  of  Cherbury,  ii.  222,  224. 

Herder,  ii.  401,  402,  464,  466,  472,  486,  519  ; 
on  religion,  461;  Spinoza,  475;  life  of 
Christ,  490 ;  work  of  Christ,  498 ;  predes¬ 
tination,  504,  506. 

Heresiarch ,  i.  54. 

Heresies,  i.  19,  20 ;  ancient,  52,  240 ;  mediae¬ 
val,  383;  ii.  119. 

Heresy  and  civil  power,  ii.  299. 

Heretics,  baptism  of  i.  202.  See  Baptism. 

Heringa,  ii.  413,  467. 

Hermas ’  Shepherd,  i.  64,  134,  140,  141,  146, 
191,  199. 

Hermeneutics ,  ii.  247.  See  Bible. 

Hermes,  George,  ii.  454,  456. 

Hermes  of  Halle,  ii.  389. 

Hermogenes,  i.  133,  135. 

Her  os  of  Arles,  i.  298. 

Herrnhut ,  ii.  391. 

Herzog  on  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism,  ii. 
141. 

Hess,  ii.  412. 

Hesse,  ii.  149. 

Hesshus,  Tileman,  ii  149. 

Hesychasts,  i.  474. 

Hetzer,  ii.  211. 

Henmans ,  ii.  514. 


Hexaemeron,  i.  133. 

Hey,  ii.  418. 

Heylin,  ii.  187,  189,  296,  298. 

Heyn ,  ii.  519. 

Hibbard,  ii.  448. 

Hickes,  ii.  183,  189,  296,  297. 

Hickman ,  Henry,  ii.  187. 

Hickok,  ii.  442,  447. 

Hicksite  Quakers,  ii.  451. 

Hierarchy,  ii.  71. 

Hierarchy  of  Angels,  i.  338. 

Hierarchia  ccelestis,  i.  477. 

High  Church,  ii.  416;  in  England,  423. 
Hilary  of  Arles,  i.  269. 

Hilary  of  Poitiers,  i.  230,  235,  253 ;  on  Holy 
Spirit,  259;  Trinity,  264;  docetism,  271, 
281 ;  creatianism,  287  ;  on  the  soul,  288; 
sin,  295  ;  canon,  318  ;  redemption,  349  ; 
Lord’s  Supper,  362. 

Hildebert  a  Lavardino ,  i.  391,  394. 

Hildebert  of  Maus,  i.  429. 

Hildebert  of  Tours,  first  used  tran  substantia¬ 
te,  ii.  95,  96 ;  on  penance,  ii.  110. 
Hildebrand.  See  Gregory  VII. 

Hildebrand,  Joachim,  ii.  152. 

Hildesheim  chalice,  ii.  99. 

Hildreth ,  ii.  446. 

Hilgenfeld,  ii.  409,  410. 

Hill,  Geo.,  ii.  432. 

Hillmer,  ii.  388. 

Hincmar  Abp.,  ii.  56,  58. 

Hippo ,  council,  i.  317. 

Hippolytus,  philosophumena,  i.  73 ;  on  under¬ 
world,  223 ;  on  Trinity,  133 ;  Antichrist, 
217. 

Hir seller,  ii.  457. 

History  of  Doctrines.  See  Doctrines. 
Historical  Christ ,  ii.  36,  344,  489. 

Hitzig,  ii.  473. 

Hoadly,  ii.  417,  516. 

Hoard,  ii.  187. 

Hobart,  Bp.,  ii.  449. 

Hobart,  Noah,  ii.  448. 

Hobbes ,  ii.  222,  224. 

Hoch  (iEpinus),  ii.  351,  353. 

Hochriitener,  ii.  209. 

Hodge,  Charles,  ii.  445,  448. 

Hofling,  ii.  517. 

Hofmann,  ii.  410,  472,  572. 

Hofmann,  Melchior,  docetic,  ii.  344,  348. 
Hofstede  de  Groot,  ii.  413. 
nrm,  l  115. 

Holder,  William,  ii.  99. 

Holdreth,  ii.  475. 

Holiness  of  God ,  i.  110. 

Holland,  ii.  214. 

Hollas,  D.,  151,  153;  on  attributes,  335;  on 
creation,  339 ;  anthropology,  263  ;  tradu* 
cianism,  264. 

Holy  Ghost,  i.  125,  258,  262,  453. 

Holyoake,  ii.  475. 

Homilies,  English,  ii.  183. 

Hommius,  ii.  167. 

Homousia,  i.  245,  246,  251. 

Homuncionitce ,  i.  258. 

Hondt,  de.  See  Canisius. 

Honor ius,  Pope,  i.  283,  298. 

Hook,  on  the  succession,  ii.  512. 


INDEX. 


539 


Hooker  Richard,  ii.  182,  186,  296;  Eccles. 
Polity,  185;  on  ordination,  29 T  ;  baptism, 
366. 

Hooker ,  Thos.,  ii.  192,  298. 

Hooker ,  ii.  182,  184. 

Hopkins,  Bishop  of  V t.,  ii.  449. 

Hopkins ,  Canon  of  Worcester,  ii.  90. 

Hopkins ,  Ezekiel,  ii.  183,  190. 

Hopkins ,  Samuel,  ii.  436,.  438. 

Hopkinsianism .  ii.  438. 

Hormidas,  i.  280. 

Hombeck,  ii  170,  173. 

Horne ,  Bp.  Geo.,  ii.  419. 

Hornejus,  ii.  266. 

Horsley,  ii,  418,  421. 

Hosius ,  i.  251. 

Hossbach  on  Daunhauer,  ii.  153. 

Host,  the,  ii.  107,  323;  elevation  o^  100. 

Hottinger ,  J  EL,  ii.  174. 

Hours  of  Devotion :  see  StuncUn  d.  Andacht. 

Howe,  John,  ii.  183,  191,.  333,  414. 

Huber ,  Samuel,  ii.  277,  279. 

Hubert ,  ii.  199. 

Hubmeier,  ii.  209. 

Hudson,  C.  F.,  ii  451. 

Hufnagel ,  ii.  386. 

Hug ,  ii.  455. 

Hugo  of  St.  Caro,  l.  424. 

Hugo,  St.  Victor,  i.  392,  394 ;  on  reason, 
420  ;  canon,  424 ;  inspiration,  426  ;  inter¬ 
pretation,  428,  429;  being  of  God,  432, 
435 ;  omnipresence,  445,  446  ;  unity  of 
God,  448 ;  omnipotence,  448,  450 ;  £he 
Trinity,  466,  469  ;  creation,  470,  471, 
47  2  ;  angels,  47  5,  47  7  ;  union  of  soul  and 
body,  creatianism,  ii.  14  ;  psychology, 
15;  on  liberty,  18;  image  of  God,  19, 
20;  freedom,  21  ;  on  sin,  23,  24;  atone¬ 
ment,  46,  48 ;  faith,  68  ;  universal  priest¬ 
hood,  71,  72  ;  sacraments,  76,  78;  design 
of  sacraments,  80,  81 ;  transubstantiation, 
96,  101 ;  extreme  unction,  112,  113  ;  res¬ 
urrection,  123  ;  purgatory,  127. 

Hulsemann ,  ii.  150,  152. 

Hulsius,  ii.  179. 

Humanity  of  Christ,  i.  173,  271,  ii.  38,  485: 
see  Christology. 

Humanitarianism ,  ii.  331. 

Humbert,  Cardinal,  Capernaitic,  ii.  89,  94. 

Hume,  ii.  379,  395,  432. 

Humiliation,  state  of,  ii.  351. 

Humphrey ,  H.,  ii.  440. 

Hungarian  Confession,  ii.  164,  167.  (Czen- 
garina.) 

Hunnius,  ii.  219,  279. 

Huntington,  Joseph,  ii.  451. 

Huntington,  Selina,  ii.  425. 

Huntington,  Wm.,  ii.  425. 

Hurd,  Richard,  ii.  384,  418. 

Hus,  John,  i.  408,  409 ;  on  Scripture,  424 ; 
on  indulgences,  ii.  70;  universal  priest¬ 
hood,  71,  73;  on  sacraments,  80;  con¬ 
firmation,  87,  88  ;  the  cup  in  the  supper, 
103;  transubstantiation,  104,  106. 

Husite  Ware,  ii.  103. 

Hutcheson,  ii.  432.  , 

Hutchinson,  Mrs.  Ann,  ii.  192. 

Hutchinson,  John,  ii.  420. 


Hulchinsonianism,  ii.  416  420. 

Hutter ,  Leonhard,  ii.  150,  151. 
Ilydroparastates ,  i.  205. 

Hymns,  works  on,  i.  33. 

Hymeneus,  i.  53. 

Hyperdulia,  ii.  30,  74. 

Hypervus,  ii.  170,  171,  175  ;  on  allegorizing, 
247. 

Hypostasis  of  Son,  i.  130,  243,  250,  264,  268. 
Hypothetical  universalism,  ii.  180,  277. 

’lX^vC,  i-  199. 

Iconium  Synod,  i.  202. 

Iconoclasts,  ii.  301 :  see  Images. 

Ideal  and  Historical  Christ,  ii.  36,  489. 
Idealism,  ii  399  sq. 

’Idibryg,  i.  264. 

’ IdLOTTOLTJOLC ,  ii.  352. 

Ignatius,  and  his  epistles,  i.  65  ;  on  Trinity, 
119,  129;  on  redemption,  182,  194;  on 
th°e  church,  196  ;  on  Lords  Supper,  204-6. 
Ignis  purgatorius,  i.  373  :  see  Fire. 

’Ibaapoy,  ii.  500. 

Ildefonse  of  Toledo,  i.  387. 

Illuminati,  ii.  380,  381. 

Hluminatio ,  ii.  288. 

Image-worship,  i.  229,  239,  ii.  75,  76,  301. 
Image  of  God,  i.  153,  ii.  18,  20. 

Imago,  i.  290. 

Imitation  of  Christ:  see  Kempis. 

Immaculate  Conception,  ii.  29,  99,  262,  488 : 
see  Mary. 

Immediate  imputation,  ii.  180,  181 :  see  Im¬ 
putation,  Sin. 

Immersion  in  Greek  and  Milan  Church,  ii. 
85 :  see  Baptism. 

Immolatio,  in  the  Lord’s  Supper,  ii.  100. 
Immortality ,  i.  155,  158,  ii.  16,  251,  371, 
519;  arguments  for,  521. 

Immutability  of  God ,  ii.  477. 

Impanation ,  ii.  104. 

Imputation  of  sin,  i.  155,  159,  180,  297,  299, 
ii.  26,  180. 

Imputation  of  Christ s  obedience,  ii.  359 :  see 
Justification. 

Incarnation  (see  Christology),  i.  94. 
Incarnation ,  without  the  Fall,  ii.  54,  363,  496. 
Independency,  works  on,  ii.  298;  in  England, 
423,  431. 

Indelible  character  of  sacraments,  ii.  80. 
Indulgences ,  ii.  68,  70,  111,  126,  140,  325, 
326. 

In  Eminem, ti,  Bull,  ii.  202,  280. 

Infallibility ,  ii.  71. 

Infralapsarianism,  ii.  268,  274. 

Infusio  Gratice,  ii.  63. 

Infant  baptism,  L  168,  198,  ii.  84,  209,  210, 
364,  513  ;  in  extremis,  369. 

Infants ,  dying  not  baptized,  i.  359. 

Innocence,  state  o$  L  163,  286,  ii.  17,  251. 
Innocent,  i.  298. 

Innocent  III.,  i.  475,  ii.  49,  72:  on  Bible 
reading,  i.  430 ;  on  indelible  character, 
ii.  82;  on  transubtanti^tio,  95,  197;  on 
extreme  unction,  112  ;  on  Mohammed,  120. 
Innocency  of  Christ,  i.  178  :  see  Sinlessness. 
Inquisition,  i.  411. 

Inspiration,  i.  86,  319,  425,  ijL  240,  467 • 


540 


INDEX. 


continuance  of,  i.  323 ;  and  revelation,  ii. 
245. 

Intention ,  in  sacraments,  ii.  80. 

Intermediate  state,  i.  221,  ii.  130,  326,  520. 

Internal^  ord,  ii.  236. 

Interpretation  of  Bible,  i.  92,  319,  428,  ii.  240, 
467  ;  free,  234;  Swedenborg  on,  472. 

Invisible-  church ,  i.  354 ;  ii.  299. 

Invocatio ,  ii.  301,  341. 

Irenoeus,  i.  63 ;  works,  69,  85  ;  on  inspire 
ration,  90;  interpretation,  92,  94;  tradi¬ 
tion,  96,  97  ;  penalty,  112;  Trinity,  126; 
Logos,  122;  creation,  133,  136;  provi¬ 
dence,  137  ;  angels,  139,  devil,  142 ;  de¬ 
mons,  142,  143,  145;  anthropology,  149; 
image  of  God,  153  ;  freedom,  155  ;  immor¬ 
tality,  159;  fall,  165;  Christology,  169, 
172,  174;  sinlessness  of  Christ,  178;  re¬ 
demption,  181,  184;  the  church,  193—4, 
baptism,  197;  Lord’s  Supper,  204;  last 
iudcment,  213,  214,  216 ;  intermediate 
state,  222. 

Irresistible  grace,  ii.  277. 

Jrosius,  i.  313. 

Irving ,  Edward,  ii.  414,  495. 

Irvingites ,  ii.  510. 

Isenbiehl ,  ii.  456. 

Isidore  of  Seville,  i.  230,  238 ;  Sentences, 
387  ;  canon,  424. 

Italian  Philosophy,  ii.  220,  221,  455. 

Ith ,  ii.  486. 

Ivo  of  Chartres,  on  extreme  unction,  ii.  113. 

Jacob  of  Tagritum,  i.  385. 

Jacob  de  Theramo,  ii.  53. 

Jacobellus  of  Misa,  on  the  cup,  ii.  103. 

Jacobi  on  adoptionism,  ii  36;  Christology, 
493. 

Jacobi,  F.,  ii.  401-2. 

Jacobites,  i,  241,  283,  385. 

Jacobites  (English),  on  rebaptism,  ii.  369. 

Jackson,  Thos.,  ii.  182,  187,  296;  on  bap¬ 
tism,  366. 

Jackson  vs.  Waterland,  ii.  213. 

John,  ii.  455. 

Jahrbucher  f  deutsche  Theologie ,  ii.  410. 

Jaldabaoth,  i.  102,  143. 

James ,  i.  47. 

James,  bellum  papale,  ii.  297. 

James,  Henry,  ii.  447. 

Janow,  ii.  121. 

Jansen ,  ii.  202. 

Jansenism,  ii.  201,  454,  457 ;  on  inspiration, 
246 ;  Lord’s  Supper,  323-4 ;  predestina¬ 
tion,  278,  280;  sin,  263,  267. 

Jarvis,  S.  F.,  ii.  449. 

Jay,  Wm.,  ii.  429. 

Jebb,  ii.  421,  425. 

Jeffrey,  Thos.,  ii.  225. 

Jehosaphat,  valley,  ii.  124. 

Jelf,  ii.  426. 

Jena,  university,  ii.  148. 

Jeremiah ,  epistle,  i.  318. 

Jeremiah  II.,  patriarch,  ii.  207 

Jerome ,  i.  229,  230,  235,  239  ;  on  Ebionites, 
214;  on  Christ’s  body,  282;  creatianism, 
287  ;  Pelagius,  298  ;  canon,  317  ;  inspi¬ 
ration,  322  ;  providence,  335  ;  devil,  342  ; 


resurrection,  309 ;  the  state  of  the  lost, 
376,  380. 

Jerome  of  Prague,  i.  408,  410  ;  charged  with 
tetratheism,  i.  459 ;  transubstantiation,  ii. 

104,  106. 

Jerusalem,  ii.  385;  destruction  of,  i.  314; 
councils,  i.  253  ;  ii.  207. 

Jesuits,  ii.  197,  198,  203;  theology  of,  197, 
201  ;  on  inspiration,  246:  Pelagians,  263. 
267. 

Jesus.  See  Christ. 

Jetzer ,  ii.  33. 

Jewel,  ii.  182,  184,  195,  297  ;  on  baptism, 
366  ;  to  Peter  Martyr,  ii.  185. 

Jews ,  i  54,  382,  414-15. 

Joachim  of  Flore,  i.  423,  462,  465,  469 ;  ii. 
119 

Joannes  Monaahus,  i.  459. 

Johannes  a  Grace,  ii.  205 

John.  See  Wesel. 

John.  See  Ruysbrock ,  Montesono. 

John  the  apostle,  i.  46,  48 ;  on  Logos,  i.  116. 

1  John,  v.  7,  ii.  421. 

John  Baptist,  ii.  30. 

John  II.,  of  Rome,  i.  280. 

John  IV.,  i  283. 

John  XXII.,  as  Antichrist,  ii.  121 ;  on  sleep 
of  soul,  129-30. 

John  of  Antioch,  i.  277. 

John  Ascusuages ,  i.  268. 

John  Cornubiensis  (Cornwall)  ii.  38. 

John  of  Damascus,  i.  28,  230,  280  ;  ii.  346 ; 
on  tradition,  421 ;  Bible,  422  ;  canon,  424  ; 
inspiration,  425  ;  reading  of  Bible,  430  ; 
cosmological  argument,  433  ;  on  knowing 
God,  438;  attributes  of  God,  445;  pro¬ 
cession  of  Holy  Ghost,  454;  Trinity,  457, 
458  ;  creation,  471,  473  ;  angelology,  475  ; 
anthropology,  ii.  13,  14;  immortality,  16; 
state  of  innocence,  18  ;  image  of  God,  19  ; 
the  fall,  23 ;  original  sin,  26  ;  Christolo¬ 
gy,  35,  36,  38  ;  redemption,  41,  42  ;  pre¬ 
destination,  57  ;  faith,  68  ;  worship  of  the 
virgin,  75,  of  images,  76;  sacraments, 
79;  transubstantiation,  108;  end  of  the 
world,  120 ;  resurrection,  124. 

John  Duns ,  Scotus.  See  Scotus. 

John  of  Fidanza.  See  Bonaventura. 

John  of  Jerusalem,  i.  298. 

John  de  Montesono,  ii.  32. 

John  of  Paris,  on  transubstantiation,  ii.  104, 

105. 

John  Philoponus,  l.  268.  See  Philoponus. 

John  Picus.  See  Mirandula. 

John  of  Salisbury,  i.  395,  396 ;  on  reason, 
420 ;  tradition,  422  ;  canon,  424 ;  on  the 
two  swords,  ii.  7  2. 

John  Scotus.  See  Erigena. 

John  Sigismund,  ii.  168. 

Johnson ,  John,  ii.  183,  189 

Johnson,  Samuel,  ii.  446,  448. 

Jonas,  ii.  147,  225. 

Jones  of  Nay  land,  ii.  419. 

Joris,  ii.  211r  284. 

Joseph ,  St.,  il  33. 

Joseph  II.,  Emperor,  ii.  454. 

Joseph  IT.,  patriarch,  ii.  207. 

Josephus  on  inspiration,  i.  87. 


INDEX. 


541 


Jouffroy ,  ii.  415. 

Jovinian ,  i.  354. 

Jowett,  ii.  423. 

Jubilee ,  ii.  70. 

Judaism,  i.  54,  382,  414,  415. 

Jude,  i.  47. 

Judgment,  ii.  124,  370:  see  General. 

Julian,  the  Apostate,  i.  313. 

Julian  (the  Pelagian),  i.  359. 

Julian  of  Eclanum,  i.  298,  299. 

Julianists,  i.  281. 

Juliana  of  Liege,  ii.  100. 

Jung  Stilling ,  ii.  394,  517. 

Junilius,  i.  335. 

Junius ,  ii.  171. 

Junkheim ,  ii.  506. 

Junkin,  ii.  505. 

Jurien,  ii.  279. 

Jus  Bivinum,  ii.  298. 

Justice  of  God,  i.  331,  452 :  see  Attributes. 

Justification,  i.  190,  ii.  63,  67,  251,  281,  354, 
362,  503  ;  controversy  on,  149 ;  in  Eng¬ 
lish  Homilies,  183  ;  Ossiander  on,  286. 

Justin ,  martyr,  i.  63,  67,  76,  78,  79,  80,  85; 
on  inspiration,  88 ;  unity  of  God,  102, 
104;  attributes,  110;  omniscience,  111; 
creation,  134;  providence,  136;  angels, 
139,  140,  141;  demons,  143;  anthropol¬ 
ogy,  149;  on  freedom,  155;  immortality, 
158;  sin,  160  ;  the  fall,  164,  166;  Christ, 
171;  redemption,  180,  184;  underworld, 
188,  189  ;  Lord’s  Supper,  204,  206  ;  last 
judgment,  213,  214;  resurrection,  218; 
intermediate  state,  222;  annihilation  of 
world,  224;  heaven  and  hell,  224. 

Justinian,  i.  280. 

Justitia  originalis,  i.  163,  ii.  18,  25,  26,  28. 

Kadser ,  ii.  513. 

Kahins,  ii.  453,  510  ;  on  Justin  M.,  i.  127  ; 
on  Luther,  ii.  314. 

Kala,  i.  114. 

Kant,  i.  30,  ii.  394,  463 ;  on  religion,  462  ; 
on  Old  Testament,  47  2  ;  being  of  God, 
476  ;  on  evil,  485,  486;  christology,  489, 
491 ;  atonement,  496,  499 ;  faith,  504 ; 
the  church,  509;  immortality,  517. 

Kant's  Philosophy,  ii.  394  sq. 

Karg,  George,  ii.  358 ;  on  active  obedience, 
362,  363. 

Karrer,  ii.  513. 

Karsten,  ii.  475. 

Kara^Aa-yy,  ii.  500, 

Kantz,  ii.  211. 

Keble,  ii.  414,  423,  426. 

Keckermann ,  ii.  170,  172,  175,  176*  chris¬ 
tology,  352. 

Keerl ,  ii.  481. 

Keith ,  ii.  519. 

Keller ,  ii.  456. 

Kempis ,  Thomas  a,  i.  402,  405 ;  imitation  of 
Christ,  405,  406 ;  on  justification,  ii.  69. 

Ken,  ii.  417. 

Kennicott,  ii.  419. 

K evuGLg,  ii.  351. 

Kenrick,  ii.  448,  459. 

Kerner,  ii.  484. 

K ijpvy/xa  uttooto A.,  i.  52. 


Kettlewell,  ii.  183,  189,  417. 

Kienlen,  ii.  414. 

Kieser ,  ii.  487. 

Killen ,  ii.  435. 

King,  Abp.,  ii.  183,  189,  281. 

King ,  Peter,  ii.  298. 

Kingdom  of  Christ ,  i.  368  :  see  Church . 
Kingsley,  ii.  428. 

Kipling,  ii.  184. 

Kirchner,  T.,  ii.  144. 

Kiss  of  Charity ,  ii.  514. 

Kitto ,  ii.  428. 

Klaiber ,  ii.  502. 

Klausen  on  Ernesti,  ii.  385. 

Klebitz ,  W.,  ii.  149. 

Klee,  ii.  456 ;  on  ordination,  114 ;  on  spir¬ 
itual  knights,  88. 

KXgmc,  kXtjtoi,  i.  194. 

Kliefoth,  i.  28. 

Klopstock,  ii.  38,  49. 

Knapp,  ii.  397,  498,  514. 

Knight ,  Jas.,  ii.  213. 

Knighthood,  spiritual,  ii.  87,  88. 

Knipper dolling,  ii.  209. 

Knobel,  ii.  473. 

Knott ,  Ed.  (see  Wilson,  Matthias),  ii.  194. 
Knowing  God,  i.  327,  328,  438. 

Knowledge,  Divine,  sources  of)  i.  82,  315, 
421,  ii.  229. 

Knox,  John,  ii.  167,  182,  185. 

Knutzen ,  ii.  222,  380. 

Koch:  see  Cocceius. 

Kohlbrugge ,  ii.  508. 

K oivovta  tljv  deiuv,  ii.  352. 

Konig,  J.  F.,  ii.  151,  153. 

Korner,  Christopher,  ii.  169. 

Kothen  conference,  ii.  411. 

Krautwald,  ii.  320. 

Krudener,  Madame  de,  ii.  415. 

Krug,  ii.  405,  499. 

Krummacher,  ii.  508. 

Kpvipie,  ii.  351. 

Ktistolatri ,  i.  281. 

Kuhlmann,  Quirinus,  ii.  156,  300,  371. 
Kuhn,  ii.  456,  457. 

Kunze,  ii.  450. 

Kurtz,  ii.  479. 

Labadie ,  ii.  177,  301  ;  on  Scripture,  236, 
238. 

Labadists,  rebaptism  by,  ii.  369. 

La  Combe ,  ii.  205. 

Lactantius ,  i.  230,  235,  243  ;  christology^ 
244  ;  on  Holy  Spirit,  258,  259  ;  on  tradu- 
cianism,  287,  290;  on  sin,  291;  on  relig¬ 
ion,  312,  315;  De  Ira  Dei,  332  ;  on  evil, 
337  ;  on  the  devil,  342  ;  the  church,  355; 
chiliasm,  368 ;  resurrection,  369 ;  end  of 
world,  373  ;  future  punishment,  376,  378. 
Lady -Ban/,  ii.  30. 

La  Faye,  ii.  174,  225. 

Lagus,  ii.  165. 

Laity  and  Clergy,  ii.  114:  see  Clergy. 
Lakermann  on  sin,  ii.  266. 

Lambeth  Articles,  ii.  182,  185 ;  on  reprob» 
tion,  281. 

La  Mennais ,  ii.  457 
La  Mettrie,  ii.  379. 


542 


INDEX. 


Lamson,  ii.  442. 

Lange,  Joachim,  ii.  372,  376,  507. 

Lange ,  J.  P.,  i.  25,  56 ;  ii.  410,  463,  511 ; 

christology,  495. 

Lange,  K.  R.,  ii.  514. 

Lanfranc ,  i.  391  ;  works,  392;  on  Lord’s 
Supper,  ii.  89,  94,  96. 

Lang  res,  synod,  ii.  67. 

Lankhard ,  ii.  380. 

Laodicea,  council,  i.  317. 

Lardner,  ii.  226,  383,  421. 

Ljaromiguiere,  ii.  415. 

Lasaulx ,  Von,  ii.  457. 

Lasco,  d,  ii.  320. 

Last  Judgment,  ii.  124,  370,  373. 

Last  Things,  i,  368.  See  Eschatology. 

Later  an  councils,  i.  283,  475  ;  ii.  16. 

Lateran  IV.,  i.  442  ;  ii.  97,  100. 

Latimer,  ii.  182,  183. 

Latin  Church,  i.  454.  See  Western. 

Latin  language,  i.  411. 

Latitudinarians  of  England,  ii.  178,  180,  183, 
193,  410. 

Latrobe,  ii.  392. 

Aarpeia,  ii.  74. 

Latrocinium  Ephesinum ,  i.  278. 

Latter  Day  Saints,  ii.  452. 

Laud,  ii.  182,  187,  297. 

Laurence,  Rd.,  ii.  184,  416,  417,  421 ;  on  re¬ 
baptism,  369. 

Laurentius  Valla,  i.  407. 

Lavater,  ii.  394,  412,  453,  470,  517,  520. 
Law,  Bp.  Edmund,  ii.  419. 

Law,  William,  ii.  226,  227. 

Lay  Baptism ,  ii.  369. 

Lay  Confession,  ii.  111. 

Lazarus  of  Aix,  i.  298. 

Leade,  Jane,  ii.  178. 

Le  Blanc,  ii.  178. 

Lechler,  ii.  397  ;  on  Wolf’s  Philosophy,  ii. 
377. 

Lector es,  ii.  115. 

Lee,  C.,  ii.  441. 

Lee,  Francis,  ii.  194,  417. 

Lee,  Mother  Ann,  ii.  451. 

Lee,  Samuel,  ii.  423,  428. 

Lee ,  Wm.,  ii.  470.  . 

Leechman,  ii.  430,  432. 

Leibnitz,  theodicy,  ii.  338,  340,  341 ;  on 
union,  ii.  219. 

Leibnitz-  Wolfian  System,  ii.  376. 

Leighton,  ii.  183,  189. 

Leipsic  Colloquium,  ii.  169. 

Leipsic  Divines ,  ii.  288. 

Leipsic  Disputation  (1827),  ii.  406. 

Lela,nd,  John,  ii.  226,  227,  379. 

Lempus  depicts  transubstantiation ,  ii.  92. 

Leo  Allatius ,  ii.  129,  207. 

Leo  of  Acrida,  ii.  108. 

Leo  Judce ,  on  sacraments,  ii.  307. 

Leo  the  Great,  i.  230,  237  ;  on  Trinity,  267 ; 
Christ’s  body,  282;  councils,  324;  extent 
of  atonement,  351 ;  the  church,  354;  sa- 
cramentum,  356. 

Leo  III.  i.  454. 

Leo  IX.,  ii.  92,  108. 

Leo  X.,  ii.  16. 

Leonistce ,  i„  384. 


Leporius,  i.  276,  281. 

Leslie,  ii.  183,  189,  384. 

Less,  G.,  ii.  384,  388. 

Less,  L.,  ii.  280. 

Lessing,  ii.  380,  381,  465 ;  on  perfectibility, 
464;  Trinity,  480. 

Lewes,  ii.  424. 

Lewis ,  Tayler,  ii.  481. 

Lex  fomitis ,  ii.  84,  365. 

Ley  decker,  ii.  170,  174,  279. 

Leyden  University ,  ii.  179. 

L'Herminier,  ii.  199. 

Liber  Concordia,  ii.  146. 

Liberty,  ii.  18,  485.  See  Freedom. 

Liberty  and  grace,  i.  301.  See  Grace. 

Libri  ecclesiastici ,  i.  84,  317. 

Lice,  when  created,  ii.  339. 

Lichtfreunde,  ii.  410. 

Liebermann,  ii.  456. 

Liebner,  ii.  410,  494,  495 ;  on  Hugo  St.  Vio- 
tor,  ii.  26,  78,  81,  428,  435. 

Light,  created  or  uncreated,  i.  474. 

Lignon ,  Peter  du,  ii.  177. 

Lilienthal,  ii.  384. 

Limborch,  ii.  214,  215;  on  state  of  innocence, 
254;  grace,  270;  faith,  285;  the  Supper, 
321 ;  atonement,  355,  362. 

Limbus  Infantum,  Patrum,  ii.  130. 

Lindner,  ii.  515. 

Lindsey ,  ii.  421. 

Dingard,  ii.  459. 

Littleton,  ii.  226. 

Liturgy  for  the  Lord’s  Supper,  ii.  323. 
Livingstone,  J.  H.,  ii.  451. 

Lloyd,  Bp.  Wm.,  ii.  298. 

Localities  of  Future  World,  ii.  130. 

Loci  theologici,  ii.  144,  150. 

Locke,  ii.  214,  223,  224,  423,  442. 

Loffter,  ii.  498. 

Aoyof,  i.  242. 

Logos,  Doctrine  of,  i.  113,  116,  117,  119, 123 
125,  126,  130,  243,  247,  272,  851,  466; 
in  Origen,  123. 

A oyoQ  daapKog,  ii  351  ;  hybiuderog  and  tt po- 
< topmoc ,  i.  11<>,  247,  ii.  330;  oneppaTiKoc, 
l.  99,  116,  126,  188. 

Lokwitz  (Loquis),  i.  410,  ii.  120. 

AoyoTrdrup,  i.  257. 

Lollards ,  i.  409. 

Lombard :  see  Peter. 

London  Synod,  ii.  166. 

Longinus,  St.,  ii.  75. 

Lope  de  Vega,  ii.  205. 

Lard,  N.,  ii.  440,  519. 

Lord's  Supper,  i.  203,  361,  ii.  89,  164,  308, 
513;  consubstantiation,  309,  320;  spir¬ 
itual  participation,  317,  318  ;  symbolical, 
metabalical,  312;  matter,  form,  and  ob¬ 
ject,  323. 

Lord's  Supper ,  Greek  Church  on,  ii.  107. 
Loscher,  ii.  144. 

Lothaire  U.,  i.  456. 

Lothrop,  ii.  440. 

Lots,  ii.  514. 

Loudun  Synod,  ii.  181. 

Louis  of  Bavaria,  ii.  121. 

A ovrpov,  i.  198. 

Louvain  University  Controversies ,  ii.  278,  280, 


INDEX. 


543 


* 


Love  feasts,  ii.  514,  543. 

Low  Church  in  England,  ii.  423. 

Lowman ,  Moses,  ii.  225. 

Lowih,  Bp.,  ii.  419. 

Love  of  God ,  i.  110. 

Loyola ,  ii.  198. 

Lucar,  Cyril,  ii.  206,  207. 

Lucian ,  i.  313. 

Lucidus,  i.  306. 

Lucifer ,  i.  477. 

Lucke ,  i.  51,  124,  ii.  406;  on  millenarianism, 
120. 

Lullus,  i.  399,  421 ;  on  Trinity,  467 ;  on  in¬ 
carnation,  ii.  55. 

Luther ,  on  uncertainty  of  grace,  ii.  65  ; 
theses,  139 ;  a  reformer,  140 ;  his  expe¬ 
rience,  141 ;  and  Melancthon,  143 ;  life 
and  works,  144 ;  Bible  translation,  145  ; 
Articles  of  Smalcald,  146  ;  Catechisms, 
166,  168;  Scripture,  230;  interpretation, 
235;  on  mystics,  236;  inspiration,  241, 
245 ;  ceremonies,  249 ;  on  his  own  au¬ 
thority,  250  ;  original  rectitude,  252 ;  the 
fall  and  original  sin,  255,  256  ;  traducian- 
ism,  264;  bondage  of  will,  271-2;  assu¬ 
rance,  277  ;  the  church,  292  ;  priesthood, 
293 ;  on  heresy,  299 ;  number  of  sacra¬ 
ments,  304 ;  transubstantiation,  309  ;  on 
Henry  VIII.,  309;  the  mass,  310  ;  Lord’s 
Supper,  314,  317  ;  confession,  325;  Trin¬ 
ity,  329;  on  being,  of  God,  334;  on  crea¬ 
tion,  338  ;  angels,  341  ;  devils,  341-2  ; 
incarnation,  345  ;  ubiquity,  346  ;  christol- 
ogy,  350  ;  atonement,  356;  baptism,  367  ; 
infant  baptism,  368. 

Lutheranism ,  ii.  141,  149  ;  controversies, 
148-9 ;  systematic  theology  of,  150  sq. ; 
decrees,  268  sq. ;  the  church,  293,  294, 
452,  513  ;  reformed,  157. 

Lutheranism  and  Calvinism ,  ii.  141,  142,  149, 
159,  160,  162  ;  attempts  at  union,  218, 
228,  229;  decrees,  268;  faith,  284;  order 
of  redemption,  288 ;  worship,  290 ;  ordi¬ 
nation,  295  ;  the  Lord’s  Supper,  314  sq. ; 
the'  host,  323  ;  christology,  345  ;  Christ’s 
humiliation,  351 ;  baptism,  364,  367. 

Lutheran  mysticism,  ii.  154. 

Lutheran  Symbolical  Books,  ii.  146  sq. 

Lutherans  in  America,  ii.  443,  450. 

Lutkemann,  ii.  156. 

A vrpov,  i.  179. 

Lutz,  ii.  472. 

Lyons ,  canons  of,  ii.  30. 

Lyons ,  council,  i.  454. 

Lyser ,  ii.  279. 

Maccovius,  ii.  170,  172. 

Macedonian,  i.  229,  258,  262. 

Macdonald,  ii.  435. 

Macknight ,  if.'  432. 

Maclaurin ,  ii.  432. 

Macmahon,  ii.  425. 

Macnaught,  ii.  470. 

Macpherson ,  ii.  446. 

Magdeburg  Controversy,  ii.  491. 

Magee,  Abp.,  ii.  421. 

Magistracy ,  ii.  299. 

Magnetism ,  ii.  482. 


Mahan ,  ii.  445. 

Maimbourg,  ii.  200. 

Maimonides,  i.  427. 

Maine  de  Biran ,  ii.  415. 

Mainwaring,  ii.  182,  187. 

Maitland,  ii.  428. 

Major,  George,  ii.  148  ;  o:i  justification,  286. 
Majorinus,  i.  353. 

Majus,  Heinrich,  ii.  144. 

Makowsky  :  see  Maccovius . 

M anpooTixoc  Formula ,  i.  253. 

Malachias ,  Abp.  of  Armagh,  ii.  105. 

FfliT  i.  115,  140. 

Malakans ,  ii.  460. 

Malan,  ii.  415. 

Maldonatus,  ii.  197,  200. 

Malebranche,  ii.  221. 

Malon ,  Bp.,  ii.  489. 

Man,  before  the  fall,  i.  163,  286,  ii.  17,  251. 
Mandeville,  ii.  223,  226. 

Manichees,  i.  160,  165,  240,  241,  295,  330, 
333,  337,  342,  352,  383,  389,  470;  ii.  43, 
262  ;  canon  ofj  i.  317. 

Manning,  ii.  426,  459. 

Mansel ,  ii.  424,  425. 

Mant,  Bp.,  ii.  418. 

M.avrtnri,  i.  87. 

Manton,  ii.  183,  190. 

Manuel,  ii.  33. 

Manutius,  Paul,  ii.  196. 

Manz,  ii.  209. 

Marathonius  of  Nicomedia,  i.  262. 

Marbach  of  Strasburg,  ii.  272,  324. 

Marburg  Colloquy,  ii.  309,  314. 

Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  i.  255,  257,  368 ;  on 
Holy  Spirit,  263. 

Marchica  Confessio,  ii.  275. 

Marcion,  i.  58,  59,  85,  190. 

Marcionites ,  i.  198. 

Marck ,  J.,  ii.  178,  179. 

Maresius,  ii.  170,  173,  213. 

Marheineke ,  i.  195,  ii.  407,  409 ;  on  Monta- 
nus,  i.  60  ;  on  baptism,  ii.  364  ;  on  Trin¬ 
ity,  480  ;  atonement,  501 ;  justification, 
504. 

Marian  exiles ,  ii.  298. 

Marino,  ii.  196. 

Mariolatry,  ii.  75,  198:  see  Mary,  Saints. 
Maronites,  i.  241,  284. 

Marsh,  Bp.  H.,  ii.  385,  420. 

Marsh,  James,  ii.  446  ;  on  sin,  488. 
Marsilius  Ficinus ,  i.  383,  390,  407,  408,  415, 
ii.  17. 

Martensen ,  ii.  410,  514,  516 ;  on  the  devil,  ii. 

484 ;  christology,  495. 

Martin  Marpr elate  Tracts ,  ii.  186. 

Martin  I.,  i.  283. 

Martineau ,  Harriet,  ii.  424. 

Martineau,  Jas.,  ii.  422. 

Martini,  Rudolph,  ii.  176,  211,  331. 
Marriage,  of  angels,  i.  146;  priests,  ii.  116; 
see  Matrimony. 

Marrow  Controversy ,  ii.  430,  431. 

Martyr,  Peter,  ii.  170;  creatianism,  264;  in 
England,  185. 

Martyrs,  i.  180,  198. 

Marum,  abbot,  i.  284. 

Mary,  the  Virgin,  i.  171;  mother  of  God, 


544 


INDEX. 


275;  immaculate  conception,  ii.  29;  par¬ 
tus  virgineus,  40;  worship  of,  74;  inter¬ 
cessor,  75  ;  psalter  of,  75.  See  Immaculate 
Conception. 

Maskell ,  ii.  426. 

Mason ,  Francis,  ii.  297. 

Mass,  ii.  100,  294,  308,  310,  373;  sacrifice 
of,  95;  in  Heidelberg  Catechism,  165. 
Masses  for  the.  dead,  ii.  126  ;  private,  326. 
Massilienses ,  i.  306. 

Master.  See  Eckart. 

Maastricht,  ii.  178,  179. 

Material  Principle  of  Protestantism,  ii.  141. 
Materialism ,  ii.  222,  475. 

Mather,  Cotton,  ii.  192. 

Mather,  Increase,  ii.  192. 

Mather,  Rd.,  ii.  192. 

Mather ,  Samuel,  ii.  438. 

Matrimony,  ii.  325  ;  as  a  sacrament,  i.  356  ; 

established  in  Paradise,  ii.  117. 

Matter,  i.  58  ;  eternity  of,  135. 

Matter  of  the  eucharist ,  ii.  324. 

Matthias  of  Janow,  ii.  71,  73. 

Matthias ,  W.  B.,  ii.  184. 

Maurice,  ii.  428,  503. 

Maurus.  See  Rabanus. 

Maximus ,  i.  283. 

Mayhew,  ii.  437,  449. 

Mayo,  Rd.,  ii.  213. 

Mayivahlen,  ii.  503. 

Maxcy,  ii.  449. 

Me  Cosh,  ii.  433. 

McCrie,  ii.  434. 

Mead,  ii.  468. 

Means  of  Grace,  i.  352 ;  ii.  303,  513.  See 

Grace. 

Meaux,  council,  ii.  87. 

Mede,  ii.  468. 

Mediaeval  Art ,  ii.  121. 

Mediate  imputation,  ii.  180,  181. 

Megapolensis,  ii.  451. 

Megetius,  ii.  36. 

Meier  on  Arius,  i.  250 ;  Hilary,  260 ;  Tri¬ 
theism,  268  ;  Wessel,  410. 

Meier,  Sebastian,  ii.  160. 

Melandhon,  ii.  143  ;  works,  145 ;  confession 
of  faith  (Augsburg),  146 ;  controversies, 
148,  175;  and  Greek  church,  207  ;  inspi¬ 
ration,  242  ;  original  sin,  256 ;  freedom, 
272;  assurance,  277  ;  the  word  sacra¬ 
ment,  303 ;  number  of  sacraments,  303 ; 
Trinity,  329  ;  being  of  God,  334 ;  preser¬ 
vation,  340 ;  atonement,  355. 

Melandhon' s  Loci,  i.  29. 

Melchiades,  ii.  87. 

Melchisedekites ,  i.  60. 

Meletius ,  i.  14. 

Melito ,  of  Sardis,  i.  108. 

Melville ,  Andrew,  ii.  182,  185. 

Memmon,  i.  277. 

Memra,  i.  116. 

Menander,  i.  54.  * 

Mendelssohn,  ii.  476. 

Menius ,  ii.  209. 

Menken,  ii.  496,  497,  502. 

Mennas  of  Constantinople,  i.  230. 

Menno  Simonis,  ii.  209 ;  docetism  of,  344, 
348. 


Mennonites,  ii.  209  ;  confession  of,  209 ;  on 
Scripture,  237  ;  sacraments,  303  ;  wash¬ 
ing  of  feet,  305  ;  Lord’s  Supper,  309,  315; 
baptism,  364,  367  ;  rebaptism,  369. 
Menzer,  ii.  353. 

Mercy  of  God,  i.  110. 

Merit,  i.  189  ;  ii.  67,  282. 

Meritum  ex  condigno,  ex  congruo,  imputati- 
vum,  ii.  68,  69. 

Merle  d'Aubigne,  ii.  414,  416. 

Messiah,  i.  117,  118. 

Mestrezat,  ii.  279. 

Metabolical  view  of  the  Supper ,  i.  211;  ii 
312,  362. 

MeTaf3u?i2.Ea6ai,  ii.  109. 

M.£Tanosla6ai,  ii.  109. 

Metempsychosis,  ii.  517,  519.  . 

Method  of  treating  History .  i.  24. 

Methodism,  ii.  39 i,  393,  487,  504  ;  in  America, 
443,  449  ;  on  predestination,  508. 
Methodius,  i.  230,  294,  368,  369 ;  on  Origen, 
333. 

Meyer,  ii.  518. 

Miall,  ii.  429. 

Michael  Cerularius,  ii.  108. 

Michael  de  Placois,  ii.  51. 

Michaelis ,  ii.  383,  385,  481,  498. 

Michelet ,  C.  L.,  ii.  408. 

Middle  Ages,  works  on,  i.  40. 

Miehl,  ii.  455. 

Migration  of  souls,  ii.  519. 

Milan  church ,  ii.  185. 

Miles,  J.  W.,  ii.  447. 

Militant  church,  ii.  291. 

Mill,  ii.  383, 

Mill,  James,  ii.  423,  424. 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  ii.  423,  424. 

Mill,  W.  H.,  ii.  429. 

Millennarianism ,  i.  60,  213,  368;  ii.  119, 
370,  519.  See  Christian. 

Miller,  H.,  ii.  434. 

Miller,  Samuel,  ii.  445. 

Miller,  William,  ii.  451. 

Milman,  Dean,  ii.  423,  428. 

Milner,  John,  ii.  458. 

Milton,  ii.  183,  194,  214,  298. 

Ministerium,  ii.  294. 

Ministry,  Protestant,  ii.  295. 

Minnesingers,  ii.  75. 

Minucius  Felix,  i  63 ;  works,  69,  76,  79,  103 
105,  137,  143,  144,  155,  171;  resurrec 
tion,  218,  219;  eschatology,  226. 
f-nrr  snpn,  i.  194. 

Miracles ,  i.  314,  414;  ii.  467  ;  in  early  church, 
i.  80. 

Miracle- Plays,  ii.  53. 

Mirandula,  John  Picus,  i.  407,  408. 

Mislenia,  ii.  267. 

Missa ,  i.  367. 

Missale  Romanum ,  ii.  197. 

Missionary  Societies,  ii.  406. 

Modalism,  i.  131,  246.  See  Sdbellianism. 
Modetus,  ii.  168. 

Moderates,  Scotch,  ii.  430. 

Mogila.s,  Peter,  ii.  207. 

Mohammed ,  as  Antichrist,  ii.  120. 
Mohammedanism,  i.  382,  414;  ii.  206. 

Mohler,  i.  18  ;  ii.  456;  on  allegorising,  L  93; 


INDEX. 


545 


Ciement,  121  ;  Justin  Martyr,  141 ;  Apol- 
linaris,  274  ;  Anselm,  434,  435  ;  justifica¬ 
tion,  ii.  282. 

Molanus ,  abbot,  ii.  219. 

Moleschott ,  ii.  475. 

Molina ,  ii.  202  ;  on  predestination,  278,  280; 

his  Spiritual  Guide,  288. 

Molinceus.  See  Moulin . 

Molinos,  ii.  204,  205. 

Momiers ,  ii.  415,  453. 

Momma,  ii.  174. 

Monads,  ii.  340. 

Monarchianisms ,  i.  60,  117,  130. 

Monas,  i.  247. 

Monasticism,  i.  305,  411. 

Moneta ,  ii.  17,  122,  128. 

Monographs,  historical,  ii.  406. 
Monophysitism,  i.  20,  229,  241,  277-282, 
385. 

Monotheism ,  i.  330. 

Monothelites ,  i.  229,  241,  282  ;  ii.  35. 
Montagu ,  ii.  182,  187. 

Montaigne ,  ii.  222. 

Montanus ,  Montanism,  i.  60,  96,  194,  209, 
216,  236. 

Monte-Mayor ,  Prudentius  de,  ii.  280. 
Montesono.  See  John  de. 

Moral  Argument  for  Being  of  God ,  i.  432  ;  ii. 
477. 

Moral  Attributes ,  i.  452.  See  Attributes. 
Moral  Interpretation ,  ii  467. 

Moravians ,  ii.  391,  509,  513. 

More,  Hannah,  ii.  425. 

More,  Henry,  ii.  183,  193. 

Morell,  J.  D.,  ii.  425. 

Morgan  (Pelagius),  i  296. 

Morgan ,  Thos.,  ii.  226. 

Morison,  James,  ii.  432. 

Morlin,  Joachim,  ii  149,  363. 

Mormons ,  ii.  443,  452. 

Mortal  sins ,  ii  23,  25  ;  Protestant  view,  262. 
Mortality ,  ii.  29. 

Morton ,  Thos.,  ii.  296. 

Mors  oetema,  ii.  354. 
ii  4-4-1 

Morns,  S.  F.  N.,  ii.  383,  387,  498. 

Mosaic  account  of  Creation ,  l  332,  470;  ii. 
338,  481. 

Moscorovius,  catechism,  ii.  212. 

Moses  Maimonides,  i.  427. 

Mosheim ,  i.  72 ;  ii.  377,  448. 

Mother  of  God,  i.  275. 

Moulin,  Peter  du,  ii.  180,  182,  279. 
Mozarabic  Liturgy ,  ii.  26. 

Mozley,  ii.  428,  507. 

Muhlenberg,  ii.  450. 

Muller,  Geo.,  ii.  413. 

MiiUer ,  Heinrich,  it  156. 

Muller,  Johannes  von,  on  monks  of  St.  Gall, 

i.  424. 

Muller,  Julius,  ii.  410  ;  on  Augustine,  i.  292 ; 
Augustine’s  view  of  freedom,  303  ;  on  sin, 

ii.  488  ;  on  freedom,  507. 

Munscher ,  i.  27  ;  on  Tertullian,  i.  109,  note; 
Clement,  121;  Marcellus,  258;  Jerome, 
380 ;  sacraments  of  Old  Test,  ii  82. 
Munster  Anabaptists ,  ii.  209. 

Muntinghe,  ii.  413. 


Munus  propheticum,  sacerdotale,  regium,  ii. 
353. 

Munzer,  ii.  209,  284 ;  on  church,  295. 

Murdock,  ii.  448. 

Mursinna,  ii.  383,  388. 

Musculus,  W.,  ii.  149,  1^0,  17 1 ;  on  baptism, 
365. 

Muslin.  See  Musculus. 

MvorypiovA.  211;  (sacramentum),  ii.  117. 

Muth,  ii.  455. 

Myconius,  ii.  170;  on  Lord’s  Supper,  317. 

Mysticism,  mediaeval,  i.  401,  406,  412,  421, 
427,  438,  442,  458,  470  ;  ii.  13,  20,  26,  39, 
47,  130,  138;  Protestant,  1 54 ;  Lutheran, 
154,  155;  Reformed,  177,  178;  Roman 
Catholic,  203,  394,  515  ;  on  the  internal 
word,  236 ;  justification,  280 ;  on  the 
church,  300 ;  Lord’s  Supper,  323 ;  crea¬ 
tion,  337 ;  Trinity,  336 ;  Christology  o£ 
344;  redemption,  355. 

Mythology,  works  on,  i.  20. 

Myths ,  ii.  470. 

Mares,  ii.  384,  421. 

Natalis  (Noel),  Alexander,  ii.  199,  206. 

Nature,  philosophy  of.  See  Schelling. 

Natural  Religion,  ii.  424. 

Naturalism ,  ii.  220,  378,  396. 

Nature,  book  of,  i.  421. 

Nature  of  God,  i.  327,  441.  See  God. 

Nature  of  Christ,  i.  229;  ii.  35,  271,  277,  344 
See  Christology. 

Nazarenes,  i.  55,  66,  170;  ii.  328,  344. 

Neander,  ii.  406,  448  ;  cited,  i.  15,  16,  18,  27, 
39,  58,  88 ;  on  Bardesanes,  137  ;  Origen, 
250  ;  Holy  Spirit,  263  ;  Philopeonus,  268  ; 
Chrysostom,  294 ;  Pelagius,  298 ;  on  the 
Predestinatus,  306;  church,  354;  Augus¬ 
tine,  355  ;  Pelagius  and  Augustine  on 
baptism,  359,  360  ;  theories  of  the  eucha- 
rist,  363  ;  Eusebius,  365 ;  Athanasius, 
365 ;  Abelard,  417  ;  Agobard,  426 ;  An¬ 
selm,  ii.  46,  61 ;  Innocent  III.,  49 ;  Wyc- 
liffe,  63  ;  Scotus  on  eucharist,  91. 

Neander ,  Michael,  ii.  144. 

Necromancy,  ii.  452. 

Nelson,  ii.  213. 

Nemesius,  L  230,  234 ;  on  preexistence,  286 ; 
on  creation,  335. 

Neonomians,  ii.  431. 

Neoplatonism,  ii.  375. 

Nepos,  i.  368. 

Nestorius ,  i.  275. 

Nestorianism,  i.  20,  241,  275,  ii.  35,  344* 
363  ;  on  marriage,  117. 

Netherlands,  ii.  412. 

Nevin,  J.  W.,  ii.  450. 

Newcome,  Bp.,  ii.  419. 

New  England,  theology  in,  ii.  183,  192,  43 & 

Newman ,  John,  ii.  459. 

Newman ,  J.  H.,  ii.  414,  423,  426. 

Newton,  Isaac,  ii.  213,  421. 

Newton,  John,  ii.  415. 

Newton,  Thos.,  ii.  383,  418. 

Newtown  Synod,  ii.  192. 

New  School  Presbyterians,  ii.  444. 

New  Haven  Theology ,  ii.  436. 

New  Jerusalem  Church,  ii.  391. 


546 


INDEX. 


Nice,  council  of,  i.  251 ;  second  council,  ii. 
108. 

Nicene  Creed,  i.  334,  ii.  249,  329. 

Nicetas  Choniates ,  i.  385,  ii.  36 ;  on  Trinity, 
i.  458,  463. 

Nicetds  Pedoratus,  ii?108. 

Nicholas,  Michel,  on  the  Logos,  i.  116. 
Nicholls ,  ii.  225;  on  the  church,  296. 

Nicolai,  ii.  381. 

Nicolai,  Melchior,  ii.  353. 

Nicolaitans,  i.  54. 

Nicolas,  Aug.,  ii.  458. 

Nicolas  I.,  l.  454. 

Nicolas  Cabasilas,  i.  402,  406. 

Nicolas  Clemangis,  i.  423,  ii.  73 
Nicolas  de  Casa,  i.  423 

Nicolas  of  Methone,  i.  385,  439,  448,  ii.  26 ; 
on  Trinity,  i.  458  ,  immortality,  ii.  16,  36 ; 
on  redemption,  41,  42  ;  on  eucharist,  109. 
Nicole,  ii.  201,  202 ;  on  the  eucharist,  324. 
Niedner,  i.  39,  389. 

Nihil  privativum,  negativum,  i.  470. 
Nihilianism,  ii.  35,  38. 

Niles,  N.,  ii.  439. 

Nilus ,  i.  366. 

Nitsch,  G.,  on  Scripture,  ii.  245. 

Nitzsch,  C.  J.,  ii.  406,  410,  477  ;  on  atone¬ 
ment,  500. 

Noetus,  i.  60,  117,  131,  246. 

Nogent,  Guibert  of,  ii.  136,  137. 
Non-Adorantes  (Unitarians),  ii.  212. 

Non- Conformists,  ii.  417. 

Non-jurors,  ii.  183,  189,  417. 

Nominalism ,  i.  391,  457,  460,  ii.  51. 
Nordheimer,  ii.  448. 

Norris,  ii.  183,  193,  225,  227. 

Norton,  Andrews,  ii.  441,  448. 

Norton,  John,  ii.  192. 

Nosselt,  ii.  384. 

Nofla,  i.  317. 

Notiones  personates  (Trinity),  ii.  336. 

Novalis,  ii.  491. 

Novation,  i.  71,  106,  108,  131,  171,  172,  352; 
controversy,  194. 

Novum  Testamentum,  Instrumentum ,  i.  89. 
Noyes,  G.  R.,  ii.  448. 

Nye,  Philip,  ii.  298. 

Oakley,  ii  426. 

Oaths,  ii.  209. 

Oblations,  i.  209. 

O'Brien,  Bp.,  ii.  505. 

Occam,  i.  399,  400,  401,  412  ;  being  of  God, 
432,  437 ;  on  knowing  God,  440  ;  on 
atonement,  ii.  51;  elevation  of  host,  100  ; 
transubstantiation,  104,  105. 

Occasionalism ,  ii.  341. 

Ochino,  ii.  212  ;  on  satisfaction,  359. 

Octavius,  by  Minucius  Felix,  i.  69. 
i Odo  of  Clugny,  i.  424. 

Odo  of  Cambray ,  ii.  15. 

(Ecolampadms,  ii.  160,  170;  on  church  disci¬ 
pline,  299 ;  on  Lord’s  Supper,  309,  314. 
(Ecumenical  Councils:  see  General 
Oegger,  ii.  393. 

Oetinger,  ii.  388,  389,  393  ;  on  Lord’s  Supper, 
515. 

Offices  of  Christ ,  ii.  50,  357. 


Oil,  in  extreme  unction,  ii.  112.  113. 

Oischinger,  ii.  457 

Olevianus,  ii.  164,  175;  christology,  ii.  351, 
352. 

Olin,  ii.  450. 

Oliva,  Peter,  ii.  116. 

Old  Testament  (see  Bible),  ii.  472  ;  Protestant 
views  on,  ii.  248. 

Olshausen ,  ii.  470. 

Om,  i.  114. 

Omnipotence,  i.  110,  332,  448  :  see  Attributes. 

Omnipresence,  i.  110,  445. 

Omniscience ,  i.  110,  332,  448;  limited,  ii. 
335. 

' OfioLovoioc ,  i.  255. 

'OpoXoyovpeva,  i.  317. 

'Opoovmog,  i.  251,  253,  255. 

Oncken,  ii.  516. 

Onderdonk,  ii.  449. 

v Ovopa ,  i.  104. 

Ontological  Argument ,  i.  325,  432,  476. 

Opera  ad  intra,  extra,  ii.  334*? 

Opera  attributiva  (Trinity),  ii.  336. 

Opera  oeconomica  (Trinity),  ii.  336. 

Operationes  Spiritus,  ii.  288. 

Ophites,  i.  59,  143,  163. 

Optatus  of  Mileve,  i.  352,  353. 

Optimism ,  ii.  341. 

Opus,  ex  opere  operantis,  ex  op.  operate,  ii. 
80,  303,  306. 

Opzoomer,  ii.  413. 

Orange,  Synod,  i.  306. 

Orders ,  foreign,  in  Church  of  England,  ii.  296. 

Orders,  sacrament,  i.  356;  ii.  114,  115,  325: 
see  Ordination . 

Ordination ,  matter  and  form,  ii.  114  ;  age  of 
the  ordained,  115;  seven  classes,  115;  is 
indelible,  115. 

Ordinatio  vaga,  ii.  295. 

Or  do  salutis,  ii.  109,  288. 

Origen,  i.  28,  63  ;  works,  72,  73,  81 ;  on 
Ebionites,  56;  on  canon,  85;  inspiration, 
87,  90,  91;  interpretation,  92;  tradition, 
98;  God,  105,  107;  omniscience,  110; 
justice,  112 ;  Logos,  123 ;  Holy  Spirit, 
128;  Trinity,  130,  132;  creation,  133, 
135;  angels,  139;  demons,  143;  on  res¬ 
toration  of  Satan,  146  ;  anthropology, 
150;  preexistence,  151;  image"  of  God, 
153;  on  freedom,  155;  immortality,  158 ; 
on  sin,  160;  on  the  fall,  162, 165;  on  Christ, 
171,  174,  178;  redemption,  181,  185,  186  ; 
predestination,  188,  191  ;  on  the  church, 
195,  infant  baptism,  198 ;  millennium,  2 17  ; 
resurrection,  220  ;  purifying  fire,  223  ;  fu¬ 
ture  state,  224,  226 ;  Christ’s  glorified 
body, *282. 

Origenism ,  fate  of,  i.  229,  239,  243,  246, 
318,  333. 

Origin  of  Soul,  i.  151:  see  Creationism, 
Traducianism. 

Original  Righteousness,  ii.  251. 

Original  Sin  (see  Sin),  i.  293,  301,  ii.  25, 
255,  364,  485,  487,  547 ;  Flacian  contro¬ 
versy,  ii.  149  ;  Edwards  on,  436. 

Original  Sin  and  Baptism,  ii.  364,  365. 

Orosius,  i.  298,  344. 

Orthodox  Church :  see  Greek. 


INDEX. 


547 


Crtftodoxy,  ancient,  i.  228. 

Osgood ,  S.,  ii.  441. 

Osiander ,  Andrew,  ii.  149. 

Osiander ,  L.  ii.  150,  353 ;  on  atonement, 
362 ;  on  water  of  baptism,  367  ;  on  justi¬ 
fication,  286. 

Osterwald,  ii.  377. 

Osterzee ,  Van,  ii.  413. 

Ostiarii ,  ii.  115. 

Ostorodt,  ii.  210;  on  Scripture,  240;  on  the 
Supper,  321;  Christology,  349. 

Ott,  ii.  209. 

Otto ,  Bp.  Bamberg,  ii.  72  ;  on  number  of 
sacraments,  78. 

Otto  (Emperor),  ii,  72. 

Ovoid ,  i.  264,  267. 

Overall ,  ii.  186,  296. 

Overton ,  ii.  184. 

Owen ,  John,  ii.  183,  191,  298;  on  universal 
redemption,  357. 

Owen,  J.  J.,  ii.  448. 

Owen,  Robert,  ii.  426. 

Oxford  Council,  on  Bible  reading,  i.  430. 
Oxford  Essays  and  Reviews,  ii.  424,  429. 
Oxford  School,  ii.  412,  414,  423 ;  on  purga¬ 
tory,  520. 

Oxlee,  ii.  422. 

Pcedobaptism :  see  Infant  Baptism. 

Paine ,  Thos.,  ii.  384. 

Pajon,  ii.  180,  181,  277,  279. 

Palamas,  i.  474. 

Paley,  ii.  384,  419,  477. 

Palfrey,  ii.  441. 

Pallavicmi,  ii.  195. 

Ild/Uf,  i.  224. 

Pamphilus  of  Caesarea,  i.  230. 

Paneitas,  ii.  104. 

Pantheism,  i.  132,  441;  ii.  47,  64,  132,  220, 
222,  337,  399,  474,  475,  481. 

Panther  as,  i.  171. 

Papacy ,  ii  71,  74,  412  ;  as  a  state,  299. 
Papal  Decretals ,  i.  32. 

Papias ,  i.  66,  213. 

Paracelsus,  ii.  154,  155,  324. 

Paraclete,  i.  125. 

Uapddooic,  i.  52,  63. 

Paradise,  L  224,  ii.  132. 

Pareus ,  ii.  218. 

Paris  Councils ,  i.  442,  ii.  32,  99,  166. 

Paris  University,  ii.  32. 

Park,  E.  A.,  ii.  445. 

Parker ,  Abp.,  ii.  182,  184. 

Parker,  Samuel,  ii.  419. 

Parkhurst ,  ii.  419. 

IT apovcia,  i.  213. 

Particular  churches,  ii.  299  :  see  Indepen¬ 
dency. 

Particularism  of  Grace,  ii.  180,  276  :  see 
Atonement. 

Partus  virgineus  (of  Mary),  ii.  40. 

Pascal ,  ii.  201,  203. 

Paschasius  Radbert,  ii.  40 ;  on  sense  of 
Scripture,  i.  429 ;  on  sacraments,  ii.  77; 
on  Lord’s  Supper,  89,  90,  92. 

Passaglia,  ii.  455. 

Passive  obedience,  ii.  354,  357,  358,  362,  497, 
498 


Pastoris,  Adam  (Martini),  ii.  331. 

Pater  ini,  i.  384. 

Patrick,  St.,  on  Purgatory,  ii.  127. 

Patrick ,  Bp.  Symon,  ii.  183,  194. 

Patripassians ,  i.  131,  248,  255. 

Patrology ,  i.  18,  34. 

Paul,  works  on,  i.  46,  47;  on  Logos,  117; 
on  resurrection,  218. 

Paul  III.,  ii.  148. 

Paul  V.,  ii.  280. 

Paul  of  Samosata,  L  246,  248 ;  revived,  ii. 
211. 

Paulicians,  i.  240,  384,  430. 

Paulinus,  i.  296. 

Paulus ,  H.  E.  G.,  ii.  398,  406. 

Paulus  Orosius,  i.  298. 

Payne,  Geo.,  ii.  424,  429. 

Peabody,  ii.  441. 

Pearson,  ii.  183, 189,  384  ;  on  baptism,  366; 
on  the  descent  to  Hell,  354. 

Peccatum ,  i.  292. 

Peccatum,  originate,  originans,  ii.  264 ;  orig- 
inale,  actuate,  265.  See  Sin. 

Pedagogics,  modern,  ii.  486. 

Uyyrj  Oeottjtoc,  i.  455. 

Pelagianism,  i.  229,  240,  241,  287,  296,  305, 
352,  359;  ii.  201,  259,  268,  485,  505. . 

Pelagius ,  i.  296  ;  on  baptism,  359  ;  creation¬ 
ism,  287  ;  eternal  punishment,  376. 

PeUicia,  ii.  456. 

Penance,  first  and  second,  i.  189;  ii.  70;  aa 
a  sacrament,  109 ;  matter  and  form  o£ 
110,  325. 

Penn ,  Wm.,  ii.  217. 

Penny-preachers ,  ii.  70. 

Pepuzians,  i.  60. 

Perfectibility ,  ii.  463. 

Perfectionism ,  ii.  442. 

II epix<v prime,  ii-  35,  346. 

Periods  in  History  of  Doctrines,  i.  26;  Nean- 
der  and  Baumgarten — Crusius  on,  27 ; 
Rosenkranz,  28  ;  Klieforth,  28. 

Perkins,  Wm.,  ii.  182,  185. 

Perseverantia,  ii.  288. 

Persons.  See  Trinity. 

Perrone,  ii.  454,  489. 

Persona,  i.  264. 

Petavius,  ii.  197,  199,  213,  347. 

Peter,  the  apostle,  i.  46 ;  his  successors,  196 ; 
his  swords,  ii.  71,  72. 

Peter  of  Bruys,  i.  384;  on  infant  baptism,  ii. 
84. 

Peter  of  Callinico,  i.  268. 

Peter  of  Cluny,  i.  383  ;  ii.  85. 

Peter  Damiani,  ii.  7  5. 

Peter  FuUo,  i.  280. 

Peter  Lombard,  i.  392,  394,  395,  435  ;  on  om¬ 
nipotence,  448  ;  Trinity,  457,  462  ;  crea¬ 
tion,  471;  angels,  476;  creationism,  ii 
14  ;  state  of  innocence,  18  ;  image  of  God, 
20;  original  sin,  27,  28;  freedom,  28;  sin¬ 
lessness  of  Mary,  31 ;  nihilianism,  35,  38; 
atonement,  47,  49  ;  election,  60,  61 ;  on 
grace,  64,  65  ;  faith,  68  ;  the  Latria,  76  ; 
sacraments,  76,  78,  in  Old  Testament, 
81 ;  on  grace  of  baptism,  84,  86  ;  Lord’s 
Supper,  98,  100  ;  withholding  the  cup, 
103;  penance,  109,  HO,  111;  extreme 


548 


INDEX. 


unction,  112,  113;  ordination,  114;  mat¬ 
rimony,  116,  117;  resurrection,  123;  the 
judgment,  126 ;  purgatory,  127  ;  heaven, 
133  ;  hell,  137. 

Peter  Martyr  Vermilius,  ii.  170.  See  Martyr. 
Peter  Mogilas ,  ii.  207. 

Peter  Oliva,  ii  116. 

Peter  of  Poitiers,  i.  395,  435. 

Petrus  Siculus,  i.  424,  430. 

Peter  the  Venerable  (of  Cluny),  i.  383  ;  ii.  85. 
Petersen,  Win.,  ii.  370,  371. 

Petilianus  (Donatist),  ii.  361. 

Petrobrusiani ,  i.  384. 
j Fencer,  Caspar,  ii.  149. 

Peyrere ,  ii.  263. 

Ppy.pt  ii  176 

Pfaff,  chancellor,  'ii.  377,  384,  509. 

Pfeffinger,  John,  ii.  148. 

Phenomenal  Method,  ii.  153. 

Philetus,  i.  53. 

Philanthropy,  ii.  485. 

Philip,  Landgrave,  ii.  218. 

Philippi,  F.  A.,  ii.  410,  502. 

Philippists.  See  Melancthon. 

Philippopolis,  synod,  i.  253. 

Philo,  i.  50 ;  on  interpretation,  92 ;  inspira¬ 
tion,  88;  omnipresence,  110;  Logos,  114, 
115,  117  ;  angels,  140;  demons,  145. 
Philopatris,  i.  313. 

Philoponus,  i.  268. 

Philosophy,  history  of,  works  on,  i.  21 ;  ori¬ 
ental,  113  ;  scholastic,  406  ;  modem,  ii. 
220,  sq. ;  in  Italy,  220,  455 ;  in  England, 
423  ;  in  Germany,  376,  394,  sq.,  398  ;  in 
Scotland,  430;  United  States,  447. 
Philosophy  and  Theology ,  ii.  375. 

Philo sophumena  of  Origen,  i.  73. 
Philostorgius,  i.  328. 

Philoxenus  (Xenaias),  i.  281. 

Philpotts,  Bp.,  ii.  427. 

Photinus,  i.  253,  255,  257,  263  ;  ii.  328. 
Photius ,  i.  244,  454,  455. 

Phthartolatri,  i.  281. 
vOopa,  i.  281. 

Physico-theological  argument ,  i.  325  ;  ii.  476. 
$vcuc,  i.  268. 

Pictet ,  ii.  170,  178,  180. 

Picus.  See  Mirandula. 

Pierius,  i.  244. 

Pietists,  i.  29 ;  ii.  157,  288,  340,  388,  391, 
485,  487,  496,  504,  515;  on  sin,  263, 
267. 

Piety ,  practical,  ii.  404. 

Pighius  (Yon  Campen),  ii.  197,  198. 
Pilgrim’s  Progress,  ii.  190. 

Pilkington,  ii.  182,  184. 

Piscator,  ii.  175,  176,  358;  Oft  active  obe¬ 
dience,  ii.  362,  363. 

UtcTLp,  i.  98,  190. 

Pistoris,  Adam,  ii.  211. 

Pithopceus,  ii.  165. 

Pitra,  ii.  36. 

Pius  V.,  on  Bajus,  ii.  202,  280. 

Placceus,  ii.  179,  180,  181 ;  on  sin,  261,  262. 
Plagois,  Michael  de,  ii.  51. 

Plan  of  Union,  ii.  443. 

Planck ,  ii.  386. 

Platon ,  Abp.,  ii.  459. 


Platonism ,  i.  273,  390,  408;  ii.  16;  ofFath' 
ers,  i.  51 ;  English,  ii.  183,  193. 

Wkypoya,  i.  222. 

Pletho,  G-emistius,  i.  408. 

Pliny  to  Trajan ,  i.  171. 

Plymouthites,  ii.  415. 

Jlvcvjua,  i.  125,  149,  242;  ii.  16. 
JlTEVfj.aTop.dxoi,  i.  258,  261,  263. 

rwnp  i  1 4.Q 

Pococke,  Bp!  Rd.,  ii.  419 
Pcenitentia,  ii.  288. 

Poinet's  Catechism ,  ii.  166. 

Poiret,  ii.  177,  300,  324 ;  on  faith,  287 
christology,  350. 

Poland ,  Unitarianism  in,  ii.  212. 

Polanus,  ii.  170,  172;  on  original  rectitude, 
253;  creationism,  264. 

Polemics,  i.  228;  in  middle  ages,  383. 
Polyander,  ii.  215. 

Poly  carp,  i.  66,  189. 

Polytheism,  i.  330. 

Pomerania ,  ii.  149. 

Pond,  Enoch,  ii.  440. 

Pope,  as  Antichrist,  ii.  119;  head  of  church, 
290 :  see  Papacy. 

Pope’s  Essay,  ii.  486. 

Pordage,  ii.  177,  178. 

Porphyry,  i.  313. 

Porretanus  (Porseta) :  see  Gilbert. 

Porson,  ii.  421. 

Port  Royal,  ii.  201,  202. 

Posidonius  on  demons,  i.  345. 

Positivism:  see  Comte. 

Potter ,  Abp.,  ii.  213,  296,  416,  417. 

Powell,  Baden,  ii.  429,  471. 

Power,  ecclesiastical,  ii.  290. 

Practical  Theology,  ii.  404. 

Prceadamites,  ii.  263. 

Prcescriptio ,  i.  96. 

Prcetorius,  Abdias,  ii.  152. 

Pragmatic  method ,  i.  24,  ii.  386. 

Praxcas,  i.  60,  62,  117,  131,  346. 

Prayers  for  dead ,  i.  375. 

Predestinarians ,  i.  306. 

Predestination,  i.  188,  303,  332,  ii.  165,  186, 
268,  503  ;  twofold,  ii.  56  ;  controversies  on, 
277  :  see  Decrees,  Election ,  Reprobalicm. 
Predestinatus ,  the  work,  i.  306. 
Preestablished  harmony,  ii.  340. 

Preexistence,  i.  151,  286,  ii.  215. 

Prelacy,  works  on,  ii.  297,  298. 

Presbyterian  Government,  works  on,  ii.  298. 
Presbyterianism  in  England,  ii.  169,  182 ; 

Scotland,  431 ;  America,  169,  444. 
Presbyters,  ii.  115. 

Preservation  of  world ,  i.  334,  ii.  337,  481. 
Preston,  John,  ii.  185. 

Pressense ,  Ed.  de,  ii.  416. 

Pretyman:  see  Tomline. 

Prevenient  grace,  ii.  64. 

Price,  Rd.,  ii.  422. 

Prideaux,  ii.  298. 

Priesthood,  ii.  71;  universal,  290;  spiritual, 
300. 

Priestley ,  ii.  421 ;  eschatology,  520. 

Priests,  i.  211 ;  marriage  of,  ii.  116 ;  age  of 
ordination,  ii.  114. 

Primacy  of  Rome,  i.  196,  352. 


INDEX. 


549 


Prince ,  Thomas,  ii.  437. 

Principles  of  Protestants,  ii.  140. 

Prinsterer :  see  Van. 

Printing ,  i.  411. 

Priscillian,  i.  240,  241. 

Priscillianisis ,  i.  333. 

Private  Confession ,  ii.  325. 

Private  Masses,  ii.  326. 

ITi oo(3o)iij,  i.  249. 

Procession  of  Holy  Spirit ,  i.  262,  463 :  see 
Holy  Spirit ,  Trinity. 

Procopowicz ,  ii.  459. 

Prohibited  degrees  in  marriage,  ii.  116. 

Prohibition  of  Bible ,  i.  430. 

Prolegomena ,  first  used,  ii.  151. 

Proofs  of  Being  of  God,  ii.  475,  477  :  see  God. 

Prophecy ,  i.  77,  314,  414,  ii.  467,  513; 
works  on,  472. 

Prophets  of  Zwickau,  ii.  154,  155,  209. 

Proprietates  Dei,  ii.  335 :  see  God. 

Proprietates  personates  (Trinity),  ii.  335. 

Prosper  of  Aquitaine,  i.  230,  237,  298,  306. 

JlpooKvvrjaig,  ii.  74. 

YlpoaprjGLg,  i.  104. 

Protest  of  New  School,  ii.  444. 

Protestant  Doctrines  out  of  Germany,  ii.  412, 
416. 

Protestant  Friends,  ii.  410,  465. 

Protestantism,  principles  of,  ii.  140,  142; 
confessions,  146  sq.,  162  sq., ;  influence  on 
Rome,  196,  201  ;  formal  and  material 
principles,  228 ;  characteristic  doctrines, 
229  sq. ;  on  tradition,  248  ;  on  man  be¬ 
fore  the  fall,  251 ;  sin,  255  sq. ;  justifica¬ 
tion  and  works,  281  sq. ;  the  church,  289 
sq. ;  ecclesiastical  power,  290  ;  the  minis¬ 
try,  295  ;  independence  of  church,  299  ; 
on  worship  of  saints,  etc.,  301  ;  sacra¬ 
ments,  303  ;  the  mass,  308 ;  christology, 
etc.,  344;  atonement,  354  sq. ;  baptism, 
364. 

Protestantism  vs.  Romanism ,  ii.  229  sq.,  244 
sq.,  251  sq.,  281  sq.,  289  sq.,  303  sq.,  308 
sq. 

Protestants,  on  union  with  Catholics,  ii.  218. 

Protoplast :  see  Adam,  Fall. 

Providence,  i.  136,  334,  469,  ii.  337,  340,  481. 

Prozy mites,  ii.  108. 

Prudentius  on  preexistence,  i.  286;  on  res¬ 
urrection,  371. 

Prudentius  of  Troyes,  ii.  56,  58. 

Psalm  Books ,  i.  32. 

Psalter ium  Beatce  Virginis,  ii.  75. 

Pseudo- Ambrosias,  i.  365,  ii.  96. 

Pseudo- Clementina:  see  Clementine. 

Pseudo- Dionysius,  i.  67,  329 ;  on  the  celes¬ 
tial  hierarchy,  338,  341 ;  the  church,  355 ; 
sacraments,  355  ;  the  Trinity,  458. 

*vxfh  5-  149>  16* 

Psychology ,  i.  149;  of  scholastics,  ii.  13. 

Psychopannychy,  ii.  129,  370,  372,  514  :  see 
Thnetopsychites. 

Puaux,  ii.  416. 

Publicani,  i.  384. 

Puffendorf  ii.  377. 

Pulleyn,  Robert,  ii.  14,  65  ;  on  the  conception 
of  Christ,  41 ;  the  atonement,  47,  49  ;  on 
the  cup,  102. 


Pungens-asinum,  Johannes,  ii.  104. 

Pur  a  naturalia,  ii.  19. 

Purgatory,  i.  221,  273 ;  ii.  126,  289,  326 
520  ;  site  ofj  ii.  130. 

Purifying  fire,  i.  373;  ii.  126. 

Purists,  ii.  245. 

Puritans,  ii.  182,  183;  ancient,  i.  352. 

Pusey,  ii.  414,  423,  426;  his  school,  412,  414, 
465,  510,  513. 

Pyrmont ,  Quakers  in,  ii.  217. 

Quakers ,  ii.  208,  216,  218,  451;  in  America, 
443  ;  on  clergy,  291 ;  the  church,  295  ;  sa¬ 
craments,  303;  Lord’s  Supper,  309;  chris¬ 
tology  of,  344;  on  redemption,  355,  362. 

Quenstedt,  ii.  151,  153;  on  creation,  339;  on 
providence,  341. 

Quesnel ,  ii.  201,  202,  203,  269. 

Quicunque,  symbol,  i.  269. 

Quiercy  Synod,  ii.  56,  60. 

Quietists ,  ii.  204,  205. 

Quietists  (Greek),  i.  474. 

Quintilla ,  i.  202. 

Rdbanus  Maurus,  i.  429 ;  ii.  36 ;  on  predes¬ 
tination,  56,  57  ;  sacraments,  77  ;  baptism, 
86 ;  Lord’s  Supper,  89,  91. 

Rabbins,  i.  426. 

Racovian  Catechism ,  ii.  210,  212;  on  inter¬ 
pretation,  234 ;  freedom  and  grace,  271 ; 
the  Supper,  320 ;  on  person  of  Christ,  349, 
350  ;  atonement,  360. 

Radbert ,  on  virginity  of  Mary,  ii.  30.  See 
Paschasius. 

Radical  evil  (Kant),  ii.  486. 

Raimund  Lullus ,  i.  399.  See  Lullus. 

Raimund  Martini,  i.  383  ;  ii.  17. 

Raimund  of  Sabunde,  i.  399 ;  on  revelation, 
423  ;  being  of  God,  432,  436 ;  the  Trinity, 
467  ;  immortality,  ii.  16,  17  ;  freedom,  22 ; 
sacraments,  79;  orders,  114. 

Rainer ius,  i.  431. 

Ramus ,  Peter,  ii.  170,  171. 

Randolph ,  Thos.,  ii.  333. 

Rascolniks,  ii.  460. 

Ratio  ac  forma,  etc.,  ii.  298. 

Rationalism,  ii.  210,  222,  378,  385,  395,  397, 
404,  407,  463,  468,  474,  506,  509,  515 ;  on 
Scripture,  ii.  239 ;  Christology  of,  489, 
490 ;  atonement,  496. 

Rationalistic  Reaction,  ii.  410. 

Rationalismus  vulgaris,  ii.  397,  410. 

Ratramn,  i.  454 ;  ii.  40  ;  on  virginity  of  Ma¬ 
ry,  30 ;  predestination,  56,  58 ;  on  Lord’s 
Supper,  89,  90,  92. 

Rauch,  ii.  447. 

Ravenscroft,  ii.  449. 

Reading  of  Bible,  i.  428.  See  Bible. 

Real  Presence,  i.  207  ;  ii.  309,  316. 

Realism,  i.  391,  460. 

Reason  and  Revelation,  i.  416  ;  ii.  463. 

Re-baptizing,  ii.  86,  364,  369. 

Recared,  i.  264. 

Rectitude,  primitive,  ii.  17.  See  Innocence. 

Redditio  Animce,  ii.  513. 

Redemption ,  i.  179,  190,  395;  ii.  41,  46,  268, 
354;  economy  ofj  251  sq.,  288.  See  Ecor^ 
omy. 


550 


INDEX. 


Redslob,  ii.  414. 

Rees,  Thos.,  ii.  212,  421. 

Reformation ,  ii.  139,  sq.,  228,  sq.  See  Prot¬ 
estantism,  Lutheranism,  Calvinism ,  etc. 
Reformation,  in  its  second  stage,  ii.  374,  sq. 
Reformation ,  works  on,  i.  40. 

Reformation  in  England,  Calvinistic,  ii.  185. 
Reformed  (see  Calvinism),  ii.  141. 

Reformed  (Calvinistic)  Confessions  on  Scrip¬ 
ture,  ii.  232. 

Reformed  Presbyterians ,  ii.  431. 

Refutatio  of  1557,  ii.  272. 

Regeneration,  baptismal,  ii.  366,  368. 
Regiaticum  concilium,  on  extreme  unction, 
ii.  112. 

Regula  Fidei,  i.  129. 

Reid,  ii.  433. 

Reimarus,  H.  S.,  ii.  381. 

Reinbeck,  ii.  377. 

Reinhard,  ii.  397,  409,  477,  481,  511,  514, 
519  ;  on  demoniacs,  483  ;  on  the  fall,  488 ; 
atonement,  498. 

Reinhold,  ii.  409. 

Reinmar  of  Zweter,  ii.  72. 

Relationships  in  Marriage,  prohibited,  ii.  117. 
Relief  Secession,  ii.  431. 

Relics,  ii.  301. 

Religio,  i.  312. 

Religion,  history  of}  i.  19;  works  on,  20; 

defined,  ii.  311,  461. 

Remigius,  Abp.,  ii.  56,  59. 

Remissiones  peccatorum,  i.  189. 

Remonstrants,  ii.  208,  214;  articles  of}  214, 
215;  on  Scripture,  232  ;  on  justification, 
284  ;  on  Trinity,  332. 

Renctsci,  i.  201. 

Repentance,  works  of,  ii.  69.  See  Works. 
Representation  of  the  Church,  ii.  300. 
Reprobatio,  i.  281,  304.  See  Election. 

Res  sacramenti ,  ii.  116. 

Resemblance  to  God,  ii.  18.  See  Image. 
Restoration,  i.  376.  See  Eschatology. 
Resurrection,  i.  213,  217,  369,  372;  ii.  122. 
Retribution,  i.  373.  See  Hell. 

Rettberg,  i.  191 ;  on  Occam,  ii.  105,  106. 
Rtuchlin,  John,  i.  407. 

Reusch ,  Peter,  ii.  378. 

Reuss,  ii.  414. 

Revelation,  idea  of}  i.  311,  416;  ii.  463. 
Revelation,  the,  i.  213,  214 ;  ii.  120. 
Revelation  and  Inspiration ,  ii.  245.  See  In¬ 
spiration. 

Reves :  see  Servetus. 

Revival  of  Letters,  i.  411. 

Reynolds,  Ed.,  ii.  182,  188. 

Rhyn,  Van.  ii.  413. 

Ribow,  ii.  377. 

Ricci,  ii.  455. 

Rice ,  N.  L.,  ii.  445. 

Richard  St.  Victor,  i.  383,  392,  394  ;  on 
reason,  420 ;  omnipresence  of  God,  445, 
446  ;  omnipotence,  448 ;  the  Trinity,  467  ; 
soul  and  body,  ii.  14 ;  on  incarnation,  54. 
Richards,  James,  ii.  445. 

Richter ,  F.,  ii.  521. 

Ridgeley,  ii.  183,  191,  420. 

Ridley,  ii.  182,  184. 

Ries,  ii.  209  ;  on  faith,  285 


Riggs ,  ii.  448. 

Righteousness,  original,  ii.  251 :  see  Image. 

Ripley ,  George,  ii.  447. 

Ripley,  H.  J.,  ii.  448. 

Ritter,  H.,  ii.  409  ;  on  Erigena,  i.  388  ;  oa 
scholasticism,  386,  390;  Aquinas,  397. 

Rivetus,  ii.  170,  173,  180,  182,  215. 

Robbers'  Synod,  i.  278. 

Robert  of  Melun,  i.  395,  396. 

Robert  Pulleyn,  ii.  14:  see  Pulleyn. 

Robertson,  F.  W.,  ii.  428. 

Robertson,  Wm.,  ii.  431. 

Robinson,  Edward,  ii.  447. 

Robinson ,  John,  ii.  192. 

Rochelle,  synod,  ii.  166. 

Rodaz,  ii.  516. 

Roger :  see  Bacon. 

Rogers,  Henry,  ii.  429. 

Rogers,  John,  on  church,  ii.  296. 

Rohr,  ii.  398,  475,  491,  511,  514. 

Rojas:  see  Spinola. 

Rollin,  Ledru,  ii.  415. 

Rokykzana,  i.  410. 

Romaine,  ii.  419,  425. 

Romanism,  ii.  141,  142, 195  sq.,  201 ;  formal 
and  material  principles,  228 ;  characteris¬ 
tic  doctrines,  229  sq.  ;  tradition,  248  ; 
man  before  the  fall,  251  ;  freedom,  268 ; 
predestination,  278  sq.  ;  Pelagian,  280  ; 
justification  and  works,  281  sq. ;  the 
church,  289  sq.;  ecclesiastical  power,  290; 
the  church  a  state,  299 ;  worship  of  saints, 
etc.,  301  ;  sacraments,  303  ;  the  mass, 
308 ;  atonement,  357  ;  baptism,  364. 

Romanism  and  Protestantism,  ii.  229  sq., 
244  sq.,  251  sq.,  281  sq.,  289  sq.,  303  sq., 
308  sq. 

Roman  Catechism,  on  immortality,  ii.  2 ;  on 
original  righteousness,  252  ;  on  faith,  283  ; 
on  seven  sacraments,  303 ;  on  "Word  of 
God,  305. 

Roman  Catholic  Church,  ii.  454 ;  theology, 
197  ;  mysticism,  203 ;  liberal  tendencies, 
206 :  see  Romanism. 

Romish  Baptism ,  ii.  364.  See  Re-baptism. 

Rome,  council,  ii.  89,  92,  94. 

Romeyn,  ii.  445. 

Ronge,  ii.  458. 

Roos,  ii.  518. 

Roscelin,  i.  384,  391,  393 ;  on  Trinity,  457, 
459. 

Rose,  ii.  413. 

Rosenkranz,  i.  28,  ii.  409,  470. 

Rasenmuller,  ii.  468. 

Rosicrucians,  ii.  157. 

Rosmini ,  ii.  455. 

Rothe,  i.  19,  ii.  469 ;  cited,  i.  194,  361,  409, 
410,  463 ;  on  sin,  488 ;  on  Christology, 
495  ;  on  the  church,  ii.  511. 

Rotheram,  ii.  418. 

Rothmann  Controversy,  ii.  246. 

Rottmann ,  ii.  209. 

Rougemont,  ii.  469. 

Rousseau,  ii.  380. 

Routh,  ii.  428. 

Rouas  (Roxas)  de  Spinola,  ii.  219. 

Royaards,  ii.  413. 

Royer- Collar d,  ii.  415 


INDEX. 


551 


DTftx  nr,  i*.  125. 

Rucelinus :  see  Roscelin. 

Ruckert,  i.  205  ;  on  Gregory,  363  ;  on  Cyril, 
364. 

Rudelbach,  ii.  453  ;  on  inspiration,  i.  426. 

Rufinus,  i.  270,  289;  on  revelation,  312j  on 
canon,  317;  unity  of  God,  330;  the 
church,  354. 

Ruge,  ii.  408. 

Rule  of  Faith,  i.  51. 

Rupert  of  Duytz,  i.  428  ;  on  Jews,  383 ; 
on  incarnation  without  sin,  ii.  53  ;  on 
transubstantiation,  104. 

Rupp,  ii.  411. 

Russian- Greek  Church,  ii.  459.  See  Greek. 

Russian  Schismatics,  ii.  460. 

Rutherford,  Samuel,  ii.  185. 

Ruysbroek,  John,  i.  402,  405,  440;  on  the 
Trinity,  466 ;  Christology,  ii.  39 ;  grace, 
66  ;  transubstantiation,  99,  101. 

Ryland ,  ii.  423,  429. 

Sabellicmism,  i.  60,  211,  229,  240,  241,  246, 
249,  254,  328,  329;  ii.  328,  329,  457. 

Sabunde :  see  Raimund. 

Sacerdotium ,  ii.  293,  294. 

Sachsenspiegel,  ii.  72 

Sack ,  A.  W.,  ii.  385. 

Sacramentarians ,  ii.  161. 

Sacraments,  i.  355,  ii  71,  76,  228,  509,  513; 
idea  of,  i  211,  ii.  514;  six,  356;  seven, 
7  6 ;  four,  7  6  ;  twelve,  7  8  ;  in  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  81,  82 ;  seven  or  two,  303  ;  Prot¬ 
estant  view  of,  116.  See  Orders,  Mar¬ 
riage,  Penance ,  Extreme  Unction ,  etc. 

Sacramenti  integritas ,  ii.  305. 

Sacr amentum,  i.  211,  ii.  116  ;  difference 
from  sacrificium,  310. 

Sacramentum  necessitatis,  dignitatis,  consilii, 
ii.  116. 

Sacrifice  in  Eucharist,  i.  204,  311,  367. 

Sacrifice  of  Mass,  ii.  95,  308,  310. 

Sacrifice  and  transubstantiation ,  ii.  100. 

Sailer,  ii  453,  456. 

Saints,  worship  of,  ii.  74,  76,  301.  See  Wor¬ 
ship. 

Sale  of  Indulgences,  ii.  325.  See  Indulgences. 

Sail ,  Andrew,  ii.  297. 

Salmeron,  ii.  197,  200. 

Salter's  Hall  Meeting ,  ii.  422. 

Salvian,  i.  230,  237  ;  on  providence,  325. 

Salzmann,  ii.  381. 

Samosatianism.  See  Paul  of  Samosata. 

Sameness  of  essence,  i  252.  See  Homousia. 

Sampscei,  i.  57. 

Sancroft,  Abp.,  ii.  416,  417.  > 

Sanctification,  ii  281,  sq.,  288,  503. 

Sandemanianism,  ii.  430,  431. 

Sander,  ii.  476. 

Sand er son,  Robert,  ii.  296,  298. 

Sandius,  ii.  332. 

Saracens ,  i.  383. 

Saravia,  ii.  168,  186. 

Sardica  council,  i.  253. 

Sardel  (Chardieu),  ii.  172. 

Sardinoux,  ii.  414. 

Sarpi,  ii.  195. 

Sart-orius,  ii.  404,  406,  494. 


Satan,  i.  142,  145,  470,  477  ; ’restoration 
146,  ii.  43,  264.  See  Devil. 

Satis/ actio,  i.  180;  ii.  43,  355. 

Satisfactio  operis,  ii.  109,  325. 

Satisfaction  theory,  ii.  350,  354,  356.  See 
Atonement. 

Saturninus,  i.  59. 

Saumur ,  school  of,  ii.  168,  178,  180,  182;  on 
original  sin,  ii.  261,  262. 

Savonarola,  i.  383,  409,  410,  421  ;  on  inspi¬ 
ration,  426,  427  ;  interpretation,  430  ;  on 
being  of  God,  432 ;  Trinity,  458,  468 ; 
predestination,  ii.  63  ;  original  sin,  28,  29 ; 
grace,  67  ;  faith,  69 ;  on  the  church,  71, 
74. 

Saybrook  Synod,  ii.  192. 

Savoy  Confession ,  ii.  169. 

Saxon  divines,  christology  of,  ii.  352. 

Saywell,  Wm.,  ii.  296. 

Scepticism,  i.  414,  438. 

Sceva,  i.  114. 

Schaff,  ii.  448,  450. 

Schafihausen,  ii.  413. 

Schaller ,  ii.  409,  475. 

Scheffer  (Silesius),  ii.  204. 

Scheibel,  ii.  453,  516. 

Schelling ,  ii.  39,  398,  sq.,  464 ;  on  Trinity, 
480  ;  on  freedom,  487  ;  christology,  492. 

Schenkel,  ii.  410,  411,  463,  511 ;  on  Protest¬ 
antism,  144. 

Scherer,  ii.  415,  467. 

Scherzer,  ii.  199. 

Schiller,  ii.  398. 
i.  53. 

Schleiermacher,  ii.  400,  401,  403,  405  ;  on 
Artemon,  etc.,  i.  118;  Augustine,  333; 
Arminians,  ii.  216;  religion,  462;  New 
Testament,  473;  his  pantheism,  475;  on 
Trinity,  479,  480;  angels,  482;  on  sin, 
485,  488 ;  Christology,  490,  494 ;  atone¬ 
ment,  496,  500 ;  election,  507 ;  on  the 
church,  511;  sacraments,  514. 

Schlichting,  ii.  210  ;  on  Scripture,  240. 

Schliemann,  i.  56,  64. 

Schlosser,  ii.  519. 

Schluter,  ii.  177. 

Schmalz,  ii.  210 ;  Catechism,  212. 

Schmidlin.  See  Andrea. 

Schmidt,  C.,  ii.  414. 

Schmidt,  C.  A.  E.,  ii.  380. 

Schmidt,  J.  L.,  ii.  222. 

Schmucicer ,  ii.  450. 

Schneckenburger ,  ii.  142  ;  on  Calvinism,  160  ; 
on  the  Reformed  Christology,  353 ;  atone¬ 
ment,  356. 

Schneidemuhl,  synod,  ii.  458. 

Schnepf  on  (Ecolampadius,  ii.  314. 

Scholastic  Subtleties,  i.  463  ;  ii.  19,  20,  85. 

Scholasticism,  i.  259,  381,  386  ;  three  pe» 
riods,  391,  401;  Protestant,  ii.  154,  170. 

Scholten,  ii.  413. 

Schomann,  Catechism,  ii.  212. 

Schott,  H.  A.,  ii.  398. 

Scholz,  ii.  455. 

Schrockh,  on  Spener,  ii.  372. 

Schwabach  Articles,  ii.  147. 

Schwabenspiegel ,  ii.  72. 

Schwarz ,  ii.  498,  515. 


552 


INDEX. 


Schwarzerd.  See  Melandhon. 

Schivegler ,  i.  45,  57,  59,  61,  70;  ii.  409,  503  ; 
on  Tertullian,  i.  122. 

Schweizer ,  Alex.,  ii.  407,  413 ;  on  Anselm,  45 ; 
Lutheranism  and  Calvinism,  141 ;  Calvin¬ 
ism,  160,  274;  Amyraut,  180,  181,  279; 
atonement,  356  ;  Reformed  system,  508. 

ScJiwenkfeld,  ii.  154,  155,  284 ;  on  the  letter 
and  spirit,  237  ;  justification,  287  ;  Lord’s 
Supper,  309,  315 ;  glorified  flesh  of  Christ, 
344,  348. 

Schulz,  trial  of,  ii.  389. 

Schulz ,  D.,  ii.  516. 

Schulthess ,  ii.  412. 

Schurmann ,  Maria  von,  ii.  177. 

Schyn ,  ii.  285. 

Scientia  media ,  ii.  280. 

Scotigena.  See  Erigena. 

Scotch  Philosophy  and  Theology ,  ii.  182,  430. 

Scotists,  i.  412,  439;  ii.  199,  279,  354. 

Scott,  John,  ii.  420. 

Scott,  Thos.,  ii.  184. 

Scotus,  John  Duns,  i.  396 ;  works,  398 ;  on 
reason  and  revelation,  416,  419;  inspira¬ 
tion,  426 ;  ontological  argument,  432, 
436  ;  freedom  of  God,  453  ;  theodicy,  474; 
angelology,  476;  the  devil,  477,  478;  on 
immortality,  ii.  16;  sin,  26;  original  jus¬ 
tice,  28;  immaculate  conception,  30,  32; 
adoptionism,  38 ;  atonement,  46,  51 ;.  in¬ 
carnation  without  sin,  54 ;  predestination, 
62 ;  on  cooperation,  64 ;  sacraments,  80 ; 
eucharist,  91;  penance,  111;  resurrection, 
124;  future  state,  132,  133. 

Scripture ,  i.  82,  421;  authority  of,  ii.  374: 
see  Bible. 

Scripture  and  Tradition  (see  Tradition ),  ii. 
465. 

Scrivener,  ii.  189. 

Scriver,  ii.  156. 

Seabury,  ii.  449. 

Seeker,  Abp.,  ii.  449. 

Second  Advent,  L  213,  ii.  370:  see  Advent. 

Secret  Marriages ,  'L  116. 

Seda,  i.  53. 

Sects,  ii.  208. 

Secularism,  ii.  475. 

Sedgwick,  ii.  424. 

Seekers,  ii.  222. 

Seiler,  G-.  F.,  ii.  383,  386,  498. 

Seiss,  ii.  450. 

Self-determination,  i.  155  :  see  Freedom. 

Selnecker,  ii.  149,  150,  151. 

Semi-Arians,  i.  229,  253,  254,  256,  259. 

Semipelagianism ,  i.  229,  241,  305,  ii.  63. 

Semisch ,  i.  127,  139 ;  on  Logos,  119. 

Semler,  ii.  389,  464;  on  Strigel,  151;  on 
theories  of  inspiration,  i.  427  ;  on  religion, 
ii.  461,  462. 

Sempiternitas,  L  445. 

Sendomir  Consensus ,  ii.  169,  219. 

Senf  ii.  467. 

Sengler,  ii.  457. 

Sens  council,  i.  459. 

Sentences,  i.  392. 

Septuagint,  i.  187. 

Sergius ,  l.  283. 

Sermons ,  rationalistic,  it  382. 


Serpent :  see  Satan. 

Serostus  Lupus  on  predestination,  ii.  56,  58. 
Servetus,  ii.  210,  211,  271 ;  on  Scripture,  238 ; 

on  Trinity,  328,  330;  Christology,  344,  349. 
Sethites,  i.  163. 

Seven  Sacraments,  ii.  76,  303:  see  Sacra¬ 
ments. 

Sever ians,  i.  281,  283. 

Severus  Sanctus  Endelechius,  i.  345. 

Sextus  IV.,  ii.  30. 

Shaftesbury,  ii.  222,  226. 

Shakers,  ii.  451. 

Sharp,  John,  ii.  172,  297. 
rov,  i.  142. 

Shaw,  Samuel,  ii.  194. 

Shearman ,  ii.  420. 

Shekinah ,  i.  116. 

Shephard,  Thos.,  ii.  192,  298. 

Shepherd  of  Hermas,  i.  54,  134,  139,  141, 
318 :  see  Hermas. 

^1K»,  i.  221. 

Sherlock,  Thos.,  ii.  225. 

Sherlock,  Wm.,  ii.  222,  297,  328,  332,  333. 
Sibbs ,  ii.  191. 

Sibour,  ii.  458. 

Sibylline  Oracles ,,  i.  77,  216,  314,  373,  415. 
Sigebert  Gemblac ,  ii.  58. 

Sigismund,  John,  ii.  168. 

Sigismund  Confession,  ii.  275. 

Signa  (sacramenta),  ii.  303. 

Silberschlag ,  ii.  481. 

Silesius,  Angelus,  ii.  204,  340. 

Simeon,  Chs.,  ii.  425. 

Simia  Aristotelis,  i.  397. 

Similarity  of  essence,  i.  252  :  see  Homoiou • 
sianism. 

Similitudo,  i.  290,  ii.  20. 

Simon ,  Richard,  ii.  206 ;  on  inspiration,  247. 
Simon ,  Jules,  ii.  415. 

Simon  Magus,  i.  54. 

Simonetti,  ii.  519. 

Simpson,  ii.  431. 

Sin,  i.  290-301,  ii.  22,  485;  of  the  devils,  i. 
145 ;  imputed,  155,  159,  168  ;  as  nega* 
tive,  161;  Lutheran  definitions,  ii.  266; 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  266 :  see  Orig¬ 
inal  Sin,  Peccatum. 

Sins  after  baptism,  i.  189,  352,  ii.  110. 
Sinlessness  of  Christ,  i.  178,  ii.  31,  490,  494: 
see  Christology. 

Sinlessness  of  Mary,  ii.  31:  see  Mary. 
Sintenis,  ii.  520. 

Sirmian  Formula  on  the  Descensus,  i.  351. 
Sixtus  IV.,  ii.  33. 

Skelton,  ii.  384,  385,  418. 

Skinner,  ii.  445. 

Slater's  Draft ,  ii.  296. 

Sleep  of  soul,  i.  217,  ii.  129,  370,  517,  619. 
Smalbrooke ,  Bp.,  ii.  226,  227. 

Smalcald  Articles,  ii.  146 ;  on  Scripture, 
232  ;  worship  of  saints,  301 ;  Word  of 
God,  305  ;  the  mass,  311 ;  Lord’s  Supper, 
310,  316  ;  penance,  325  ;  confession,  325 ; 
purgatory,  326. 

Smalley,  ii.  435,  437. 

Smaragdits,  i.  455. 

Smedymnus,  ii.  298. 

Snape,  ii.  417. 


INDEX. 


553 


Smith ,  Elisha,  ii.  384. 

Smith ,  Joe,  ii.  452. 

Smith,  John,  ii.  183,  193 ;  on  justification, 
285. 

Smith ,  John  Pye,  ii.  421,  423,  429. 

Smith ,  S.  Stanhope,  ii.  445. 

Smyth ,  Thomas,  ii.  445. 

Socinianism,  ii.  210,  218,  464,  489,  513;  on 
Scripture,  232,  239,  240,  241 ;  inspiration, 
244;  Pelagianism,  271;  on  justification, 
281  sq.,  284;  the  church,  295;  the  sacra¬ 
ments,  303  ;  Supper,  309,  320 ;  Trinity, 
328  sq. ;  limits  omniscience,  335  ;  on  crea¬ 
tion,  339 ;  angels,  341 ;  person  of  Christ, 
344;  atonement,  354  sq.,  360 ;  incarnation, 
363  ;  baptism,  364,  367  ;  infant  baptism, 
369. 

Socinus,  it  210,  212 ;  catechism,  212  ;  on 
Scripture,  240  ;  inspiration,  244 ;  on  state 
of  innocence,  254 ;  on  immortality,  254 ; 
on  original  sin,  260  ;  on  the  church,  293 ; 
the  Trinity,  328,  331 ;  Christology,  344, 
349 ;  the  atonement,  359,  360 ;  baptism, 
367 v 

Societe  Evangelique ,  ii.  415. 

Societies,  religious,  ii.  390. 

Sohnius ,  ii.  175,  176. 

Soissons ,  council,  i.  459. 

Sola  Fides ,  ii.  281,  286. 

Soldan,  ii.  416. 

Solly,  ii.  503,  507. 

Solutio  (Grotian),  ii.  355. 

Son  and  Logos ,  i.  243,  246. 

Soothsaying ,  i.  87. 

Sophronius,  i.  283. 

Soteriology,  i.  345  ;  ii.  35,  36,  344  sq. 

ho(pia,  i.  115,  125,  466. 

Soul,  origin  of,  i.  151.  See  Creatianism , 
Preexistence,  Traducianism. 

Sources  of  Christian  knoivledge,  i.  82, 315, 421 ; 
ii.  229. 

South,  ii.  183,  190,  329,  332. 

Southey's  Wesley,  ii.  392. 

Souverain,  i.  51,  127. 

Spalding,  ii.  385,  520. 

Spalding,  Bp.,  ii.  459. 

Spangenberg,  ii.  392  ;  on  sin,  487. 

Spanheim,  F.,  ii.  279. 

Speculative  Method ,  i.  24. 

Speculative  Philosophy ,  ii.  3.  See  Philoso¬ 
phy. 

Spelman,  Henry,  ii.  296. 

Spener ,  ii.  157,  158,  388,  390 ;  on  sin,  267  ; 
inspiration,  241,  246 ;  the  church,  300 ; 
creation,  340;  eschatology,  370,  372. 

Spencer ,  Herbert,  ii.  425. 

'Ltypayig,  i.  198. 

Spinckes ,  ii.  297,  417. 

Spinola,  Ronas  de,  ii.  219. 

Spinoza,  ii.  221,  470,  475,  491. 

Spira,tio  (Trinity),  ii.  336. 

Spiritual  Participation  in  the  Supper ,  ii.  317. 
See  Lord's  Supper. 

Spirituales ,  i.  384,  423. 

Spiritualism,  ii.  452. 

Spitting  in  the  Mass ,  ii.  91. 

Spittler,  ii.  386. 

Spring,  Gardiner,  ii.  443. 


Spring,  Samuel,  ii.  439. 

Sprinkling ,  ii.  85.  See  Baptism. 

Stackhouse,  ii.  226,  418. 

Stahl,  ii.  411,  453. 

Stancarus,  Francis,  ii.  149,  362,  363. 
Staudenmaier ,  ii.  457  ;  on  scholastics,  i.  391 ; 
on  Erigena,  417. 

Staudlin ,  K.  F.,  ii.  396,  499  ;  on  Limborch, 
216. 

Stanley ,  A.  P.,  ii.  428. 

Stapfer,  ii.  378. 

Staphylus,  ii.  286. 

Staroverzi,  ii.  460. 

State  and  church,  ii.  71,  299.  See  Church. 
Status  exaltationis,  inanitionis,  ii.  351. 
Stearns,  ii.  505. 

Steffens,  ii.  385,  406,  453,  494. 

Steinbart ,  ii.  382,  496,  498. 

Steinmeiz,  ii.  392. 

Stennett,  ii.  429. 

Stephen  de  Borbone,  ii.  128. 

Stephen  Gobarus ,  i.  38. 

Stephen,  of  Rome,  i.  202. 

Stercorianism,  ii.  91. 

Stevenson,  ii.  434. 

Stewart,  Dugald,  ii.  433. 

St.  Hilaire,  Rosseeuw,  ii.  195. 

Stiebritz,  ii.  383. 

Stiles,  Ezra,  ii.  438. 

Stier,  ii.  497. 

Stilling,  Jung.,  ii.  394. 

Stillingfleet ,  ii.  183,  188,  227,  296,  297,  298, 
333. 

Stolz,  ii.  412. 

Stone ,  J.  S.,  ii.  449. 

Storch,  ii.  209,  222,  383,  387. 

Storr,  ii.  397,  468,  498. 

Stour dza,  ii.  459. 

Stosch,  ii.  383. 

Strabo,  Walafried,  ii.  90. 

Strdhler,  ii.  376. 

Strasburg,  i.  412. 

Strauss,  D.  F.,  ii.  409 ;  cited,  i.  45 ;  ii.  413, 
469,  471,  511;  on  eucharist,  i.  206;  So¬ 
cinianism,  ii.  212  ;  on  Being  of  God,  477  ; 
Christology,  495 ;  immortality,  521. 
Striqel,  Victoria,  ii.  149,  160 ;  against  Fla* 
cius,  261,  262. 

Strobel ,  ii.  516. 

Strong,  Nathan,  ii.  440. 

St.  Simonism,  ii.  457. 

Stuart,  Moses,  ii.  447. 

Stiibner,  ii.  209. 

Studien'und  Kritiken ,  ii.  410. 

Studita,  Theodore,  ii.  26,  76,  79. 

Stunden.  See  Andacht,  ii.  398. 

Sturm ,  ii.  514. 

Suadela,  in  Irenseus,  i.  183. 

Suarez ,  ii.  197,  200,  280. 

Subdiaconi,  ii.  115. 

Sublapsarianism,  ii.  268,  274. 

Subordination  of  the  Son,  i.  130  244,  249 
Subscription  to  Articles ,  ii.  417,  422. 
Subsequent  Will,  i.  332. 

Substantia ,  i.  264. 

Subtleties.  See  Scholastic. 

Succession.  See  Apostolic. 

Seuvic  Syngramma,  ii.  314. 


554 


INDEX. 


Sufferings  of  Christ  (divine  or  human),  ii.  362. 
See  Death  of  Christ. 

Sulzer,  J.  G.,  ii.  324. 

Sulzer,  S.,  ii.  519. 

'Lvfi(3o?iov}'  i.  17,  200. 

Summas ,  i.  396. 

2 1 ivd(j)£La,  i.  275. 

2vva£ic,  i.  205. 

’Zwovaiaarac ,  i.  275. 

Supererogation ,  works  of,  ii.  68,  70.  See 
Works. 

Supernaturalism ,  ii.  240,  395  sq.,  404,  406, 
407,  463,  474,  511. 

Superstition,  ii.  387. 

Supralapsarianism,  ii.  268,  274. 

Sicso,  Henry,  i.  402,  404 ;  on  knowing  God, 
440  ;  on  pantheism,  444  ;  on  the  Trinity, 
465  ;  creation,  473  ;  atonement,  ii.  52  ; 
grace,  66  ;  heaven,  135  ;  eternal  punish¬ 
ment,  138. 

Susskind,  ii.  397,  467. 

Swamerdam,  ii.  178. 

Sweden ,  ii.  412. 

Swedenborg,  ii.  391,  393  ;  on  interpretation, 
472  ;  on  angels  and  devils,  482,  483  ;  on 
Christ  and  Trinity,  479  ;  on  sin, 487  ;  Chris- 
tology,  489,  491 ;  on  imputation,  506  ;  on 
the  church,  509,  510;  eschatology,  520. 

Swiss  Reformation ,  ii.  160. 

Switzerland,  ii.  413. 

Swords,  the  two,  ii.  71,  72. 

Sykes,  ii.  184,  195,  213,  225,  227. 

Sylvester  II.  (Gerbert),  i.  389. 

Symbolic  books ,  i.  17,  31,  42 ;  authority  of, 
ii.  374. 

Synibolic  view  of  the  Supper,  i.  362 ;  ii.  89, 
312. 

Symbolism,  in  worship,  ii.  290. 

Symbolism,  ii.  142,  405. 

Symbolism ,  age  ofj  ii.  139  sq. 

Symbolism  in  art,  i.  35. 

Symbolum  Quicunque,  i.  268 :  see  Athana- 
sian  Creed. 

Symington,  ii.  434. 

Syncretism,  ii.  157,  158,  218. 

Synergism,  ii.  64,  148,  272. 

Synesius ,  i.  370. 

Synge,  Abp.,  ii.  225. 

Syngramma  Suevicum ,  ii  314. 

Synnada ,  synod,  i.  202. 

Synods  (see  Councils)  of  Antioch,  i.  248 ; 
Boston,  ii.  169;  Cambridge,  169;  Cha- 
renton,  181 ;  Delft,  179 ;  Dort,  165  ;  Jeru¬ 
salem,  207  ;  Loudun,  181 ;  Newtown, 
292 ;  of  Robbers,  i.  278  ;  Rochelle,  ii. 
166;  Saybrook,  192. 

Synoptic  Evangelists,  i.  44 ;  ii.  489. 

Synthetic  method,  ii.  150,  152. 

Systems  (modern  German)  of  theology,  ii. 
382. 

Systematic  Theology ,  i.  381,  ii.  382. 

Systeme  de  la  Nature,  ii.  379. 

Szegeden  (Seegedin),  ii.  174. 

Tables  of  Church  History,  i.  40. 

Taborites,  i.  410. 

Tafel,  ii.  393. 

Tajo  of  Saragossa,  i.  387. 


Tante,  ii.  409. 

Tappan,  ii.  438,  442,  447. 

Tarragona  Council,  i.  430. 

Taste  Scheme,  ii.  436. 

Tatian,  i.  63,  68  ;  ou  Logos,  120;  anthropol 
ogy,  148,  149 ;  image  of  God,  154 ;  on 
freedom,  155 ;  immortality,  158. 

Tauter ,  John,  i.  402,  404,  440  ;  ii.  394,  438 ; 
on  pantheism,  444 ;  on  Trinity,  464 ; 
angels,  477  ;  on  the  fall,  ii.  23  ;  Christol- 
ology,  39 ;  atonement,  52 ;  on  assurance, 
65,  66  ;  on  Mary,  75  ;  Lord’s  Supper,  101. 

Taylor,  Isaac,  ii.  425. 

Tay lor,  Jeremy,  ii.  183,  188,  276,  297;  on 
episcopacy,  296  ;  on  baptism,  366. 

Taylor  of  Norwich,  ii.  385,  419. 

Taylor ,  N.  W.,  ii.  440. 

Tears :  see  Baptism. 

Teleological  argument,  i.  99,  ii.  476. 

Telesio ,  ii.  221. 

Teller,  ii.  383,  387,  464 

Temperaments,  ii.  13. 

Tennent ,  ii.  438. 

Tertullian,  i.  63,  76,  77,  78,  79;  works,  69; 
on  inspiration,  89 ;  tradition,  96 ;  being 
of  God,  101 ;  on  anthropomorphism,  108, 
109;  on  holiness  of  God,  111;  penalty, 
112;  on  Logos,  121  ;  on  Holy  Spirit,  127 ; 
Trinity,  129,  130;  providence,  136;  de¬ 
mons,  143,  146 ;  anthropology,  149  ;  tra* 
ducianism,  151 ;  freedom,  155  ;  immor¬ 
tality,  158;  the  fall,  165;  Christology, 
170,  174;  Christ  sinless,  178;  satisfaction, 
180;  justification,  190;  on  the  church, 
196;  on  baptism,  197,  198;  on  Lord’s 
Supper,  204,  207;  on  sacraments,  212; 
judgment,  216  ;  intermediate  state,  222. 

Territorial  system,  ii.  509. 

Tessard,  ii.  279. 

Testament  of  XII  Patriarchs,  i.  216. 

Testamentum,  i.  34. 

Testimonium  animce ,  i.  99. 

Testimony  of  the  Spirit,  ii.  245. 

Tetrapolitan  Confession  on  Lord’s  Supper,  ii. 
317. 

Tetratheism,  i.  267,  457,  459. 

Tetzel,  theses,  ii.  139,  144. 

Thaddeus ,  in  Eusebius,  i.  187. 

Thaer,  ii.  381. 

Thalia  of  Arius,  i.  249. 

Thamer,  ii.  284,  359;  on  the  Bible,  237. 

Qedvdpwrcof;,  i.  174. 

Theism,  i.  441,  ii.  222,  474,  481. 

Qelypa  krcopevov,  npoyyovpevov,  i.  332,  474 

Themistius,  i.  281. 

Theodicy ,  ii.  337,  469,  581 :  see  Providence. 

Theodor et  of  Cyrus,  i.  230,  234 ;  on  Holy  Spirit, 
263,  282:  traducianism,  288;  apologetics, 
313 ;  inspiration,  322 ;  on  Providence, 
335  ;  on  angelolatry,  338  ;  Lord’s  Supper, 
366. 

Theodore  Abukara ,  ii.  38. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  i.  230,  234 ;  on 
Holy  Spirit,  263  ;  Nestorianism,  275 
Augustine,  305  ;  inspiration,  321,  322 
punishment,  380  ;  adoptionism,  ii.  36. 

Theodore  of  Pharan,  i.  284. 

Theodore  Studita,  ii.  26,  76,  79. 


INDEX. 


55  5 


Theodosius,  i.  277. 

Theodotus ,  i.  60,  61,  117. 

Theodulph  of  Orleans,  i.  454. 

Theognis  of  Nice,  i.  253. 

Theognostus ,  i,  244. 

Theologia  Germanica,  i.  402,  405.  See 
Deutsche  Theologie. 

Theologia  Jrregenitorum,  ii.  288. 

Theologische  Jahrbucher ,  ii.  410. 

Theology  and  Philosophy,  ii.  375:  see  Philos¬ 
ophy. 

Theology  of  the  Fathers,  i.  63 ;  scholastic, 
391 ;  modern,  ii.  404 ;  change  in  the 
treatment  of,  382  ;  Roman  Catholic,  197  ; 
of  Jesuits,  197,  201 ;  in  France,  414 ;  in 
England,  182,  416,  423  ;  in  Scotland,  182, 
430  ;  in  New  England,  183,  192  ;  in 
United  States,  435  sq.  ;  Puritan,  183  ; 
Lutheran,  150;  Calvinistic,  170;  German 
Reformed,  175. 

Theopaschites,  i.  279. 

Theophanies,  i.  115. 

Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  i.  370. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch,  i.  63,  68,  81,  110; 
on  inspiration,  89  ;  on  being  of  God, 
101;  Logos,  120;  Trinity,  129;  on  Holy 
Spirit,  126;  on  creation,  134;  on  freedom, 
155  ;  the  fall,  164;  baptism,  199;  mil¬ 
lennium,  215 ;  resurrection,  219. 

Theophylactus ,  i.  385,  ii.  26;  oneucharist,  109. 

Theosophy,  Lutheran,  ii.  155 :  see  Mysticism. 

OeoToicoc,  i.  275. 

Theramo ,  Jacob  de,  ii.  53. 

Therese  a  Jesu,  ii.  205. 

Thesaurus  meritorum ,  supererogationis,  ii. 
69. 

Theses  of  Luther,  ii.  139;  of  Harms,  ii.  405. 

Thirty -nine  Articles ,  ii.  164,  166, 167  ;  on  tra¬ 
dition,  249  ;  original  sin,  259  ;  predestina¬ 
tion,  280;  on  justification,  285;  thechurch, 
295,  296 ;  the  sacraments,  304,  306 ;  the 
Lord’s  Supper,  322  ;  purgatory,  etc.,  327  ; 
on  redemption,  357. 

Thnetopsychites,  ii.  129,  159,  221. 

Tholuck,  ii.  389,  396,  467  ;  on  the  apologists, 
385  ;  Semler,  386 ;  on  Gruner,  387  ;  on 
sin,  488. 

Thom,  J.  H.,  ii.  422. 

Thomas :  see  Aquinas. 

Thomas:  see  Kempis. 

Thomas  of  Bradwardine,  ii.  61,  62. 

Thomas  of  Cellano,  ii.  121. 

Thomas- Christians,  i.  241. 

Thomasius,  ii.  410,  502 ;  on  redemption,  i. 
347  ;  on  Anselm,  ii.  46. 

Thomasius ,  Christian,  ii.  157,  158,  310,  341, 
510;  on  Church  and  State,  300. 

Thomassin,  ii.  198. 

Thomists,  i.  412,  439,  ii.  199,  279. 

Thorn  Colloquy,  ii  219. 

Thorn  Declaration,  ii.  164,  168;  on  immacu¬ 
late  conception,  262. 

Thorndike,  ii.  186,  296. 

Thornwell,  ii  445. 

Thummius,  ii.  353,  354. 

Thysi'us,  ii.  215. 

Tichonius  on  the  church,  i  354. 

Tiedge ,  ii  398. 


Tieftrunk,  ii.  395,  396.  499,  516. 

Til,  Sol  van,  ii.  178. 

Tillotson,  ii.  183,  194 ;  baptism  ofj  369. 

Timor  jilialis,  servilis,  ii.  111. 

Tindal ,  ii.  222,  226. 

Titus  Bostrus,  i.  330  ;  on  resurrection,  370. 

Toland,  ii  222,  225. 

Toledo,  council,  i.  263. 

Tollner,  ii.  478,  496;  on  word  of  God,  466. 

Tomline,  ii.  418,  420. 

Tongues  (Irvingite),  ii  414. 

Toplady,  ii.  184,  420 ;  on  Charnock,  190. 

Torgau  Articles,  ii.  147. 

Torments  of  hell,  ii.  132. 

Torquemada,  ii.  33. 

Toulouse  Council  on  Bible  reading,  i.  430. 

Tournely,  ii.  199. 

Tractarians :  see  Oxford  School,  Puseyites. 

Tracts  for  Times ,  ii.  423,  425. 

Tradition,  i.  82,  95,  315,  323,  421 ;  ii.  230, 
248,  465. 

Traditionalism,  ii.  458 ;  Roman  See  on,  465. 

Traducianism ,  i.  151,  286 ;  ii.  13,  263. 

Trailer en,  Dean,  letter  to  Bullinger,  ii.  185. 

Transiiio,  ii.  95. 

Transcendentalism,  ii.  446. 

Transubstantiate ,  first  used  by  Hildebert  of 
Tours,  ii  95,  96. 

Transubstantiation,  ii.  89  ;  referred  to  the 
whole  Trinity,  99  :  see  Lord's  Supper. 

Travers,  ii.  186. 

Travis,  Archibald,  ii.  421. 

Trechsel ,  i.  248 ;  on  Anabaptists,  ii.  211. 

Tregelles,  ii.  423,  428. 

Trench ,  Dean,  ii.  423,  428,  471. 

Trent,  Council  of,  ii.  195  sq. ;  Scripture, 
232  ;  on  interpretation,  234 ;  Yulgate 
edition,  235 ;  on  freedom,  269 ;  original 
righteousness,  251 ;  original  sin,  260 ;  on 
immaculate  conception,  263  ;  justification, 
282  ;  faith,  282 ;  on  saints  and  images, 
301,  302  ;  number  of  sacraments,  303 ; 
opus  operatum,  306  ;  Lord’s  Supper,  310 ; 
penance,  325 ;  purgatory,  325. 

Treves,  coat  of,  ii.  458. 

Triads,  i.  114,  126,  129. 

Triangle  Controversy,  ii.  442,  443. 

T piag,  i.  129. 

Trichotomy,  i.  149,  158  :  see  Anthropology. 

Trimurti,  i.  114. 

Trinitas,  i.  129. 

Trinity,  i.  118,  123,  125,  129,  229,  244,  246, 
262,  453,  457  ;  ii.  210,  478,  481 ;  formulas, 

i.  264,  ii.  335,  336 ;  in  creation,  i.  334, 

ii.  339,  473  ;  in  Old  Testament,  337  ;  and 
history  of  the  world,  i.  469  ;  transubstan¬ 
tiated,  ii.  99. 

Tritheism,  i.  130,  247,  457,  ii.  328. 

Trithemius,  Chronicle,  ii.  120. 

Trishagion,  i.  280. 

Triumphant  Church,  ii.  291. 

Tronchin,  ii.  279. 

Trottet,  ii.  413. 

Trullan  Council,  First,  i.  283. 

Truman ,  Joseph,  ii.  194. 

Truth  of  Christianity,  i.  114,  ii.  463 :  sec 
Evidences. 

Try  on,  ii.  205. 


Tubingen  Divines ,  ii.  288,  351. 

Tubingen  school  (Baur),  i.  48,  56. 

Tucker ,  Abraham,  ii.  422. 

Tuckney ,  ii.  190. 

Tvnoc,  i.  283. 

Turlupines ,  i.  384. 

Turner,  S.  H.,  ii.  448. 

Turrecremata,  ii.  33. 

Turretine ,  F.,  ii.  168  ;  on  obedience  of  Christ, 
359. 

Turretine ,  John  Alpb.,  ii.  118,  180,  241,  311. 
Twesten,  ii.  410,  464. 

Twisse,  ii.  183,  187,  190. 

Twysden,  ii.  291. 

Tyler ,  ii.  240. 

Tyler,  Samuel,  ii.  446. 

Tyng ,  ii.  449. 

Tyre ,  council,  i.  253. 

Tzschirner ,  ii.  398. 

Ubiquity  of  Christ's  body ,  ii.  309,  316:  see 
Christology. 

Udo ,  i.  290. 

Ueberfeldt ,  ii.  156. 

Uhlich,  ii.  411. 

Ullmann,  i.  413,  ii.  494;  on  Gregory  the 
Great,  i.  294 ;  on  scholastics,  391 ;  on 
Nicolas  of  Methone,  464,  ii.  109  ;  Wessel, 
52. 

Ulrici,  ii.  408,  415. 

Ulster  Synod ,  ii.  435. 

Umbreit,  ii.  412,  413. 

Unconditional  election ,  ii.  60. 

Uncreated  light ,  i.  414. 

Unction ,  extreme,  ii.  112  ;  repetition  of,  113. 
Underworld ,  i.  181,  ii.  130:  see  Hades. 

Unio  mystica ,  i.  188,  ii.  288. 

Unio  personalis,  ii.  344,  351. 

Unio  sacramentalis,  ii.  324. 

Union ,  attempts  at,  ii.  218,  452. 

Unitarians,  i.  131,  ii.  208,  210,  411,  418;  in 
England,  210,  213  ;  controversy  in  Eng¬ 
land,  421,  422  ;  in  New  England,  436 ; 
in  Ireland,  43 1 :  see  Socinians. 

United  Brethren ,  ii.  11,  391,  506,  509,  510, 
513. 

United  States,  ii.  509  :  see  America. 

Unity  of  Church ,  i.  195  :  see  Church. 

Unity  of  God,  i.  102,  110,  330,  445. 

Universal  Church,  ii.  299. 

Universalism  of  grace,  ii.  180,  215,  351. 
Universalismus  hypotheticus,  i.  211,  218. 
Universal  priesthood,  ii.  11. 

Universalists  in  America,  ii.  443,  451. 

Upham ,  ii.  446. 

Upsal,  university,  ii.  316. 

Usages  in  baptism,  ii.  364. 

Usher ,  ii.  182,  185,  321 ;  on  ordination,  291. 
Usteri,  ii.  412;  on  atonement,  502. 
Utilitarianism ,  ii.  423. 

Urban  IV.,  ii.  95. 

Urban  VIII.,  ii.  280. 

Urlsperger ,  ii.  390,  418. 

Ursinus,  ii.  164,  115. 

Uytenbogard,  ii.  215. 

Valdez,  John,  ii.  211. 

Valence,  councils,  i.  306,  ii.  51,  60. 


Valencia ,  controversy  on  transubstantiation, 
ii.  99. 

Valentinus ,  i.  118,  111,  198. 

Valentinians,  i.  58,  149,  ii.  31,  344. 

Validity  of  baptism,  ii.  364,  369 :  see  Romish. 
Valla :  see  Laurentius. 

Van  der  Weijen,  ii.  114. 

Van  Ess,  ii.  455. 

Van  Hemmert,  ii.  461. 

Van  Mildert ,  ii.  213,  418. 

Van  Osterzee,  ii.  413. 

Van  Prinsterer,  ii.  413. 

Van  Rhyn,  ii.  413. 

Van  Til,  ii.  118,  119. 

Van  Wijpersse ,  ii.  413. 

Vanini,  ii.  221. 

Variata  of  Augsburg  Confession,  ii.  141. 
Vasquez ,  ii.  191,  200,  280. 

Vatke,  ii.  413. 

Vaud ,  Canton  de,  ii.  412,  510. 

Vaughan ,  R.,  ii.  424,  429. 

Venial  sins,  ii.  23,  25. 

Venn,  Henry,  ii.  425. 

Ventura,  ii.  455. 

Vera,  ii.  408. 

Vercelli  Synod,  ii.  89,  92,  94. 

Vergier ,  Jean  du  (St.  Cyran),  ii.  202. 
Vicarious  satisfaction ,  i.  180  :  see  Atonement. 
Vicarious  suffering,  ii.  354:  ibid. 

Victors:  see  Hugo,  William,  Walter. 

Vienne  Synods,  ii.  84,  95. 

Vigilius  Tapsensis,  i.  269. 

Vincens  of  Lerins,  i.  230,  231,  269,  308  ;  o» 
tradition,  324. 

Vincent  of  Nismes,  ii.  414. 

Vinet,  ii.  219,  401,  414,  416,  511. 

Viret,  ii.  318. 

Virgilius ,  i.  413. 

Virginity  of  Mary,  ii.  30. 

Virtue,  Edwards  on,  it  431. 

Virtues  of  heathen,  ii.  256,  211. 

Virtus  instrumenialis,  ii.  80. 

Vishnoo ,  i.  114. 

Visible  Church,  i.  354,  ii.  299. 

Visigoths,  i.  264. 

Vitringa ,  ii.  118,  119;  on  baptism,  365. 
Vitium  originis,  i.  165  :  see  Original  sin. 
Vladislas  II.,  ii.  168. 

Vocatio ,  ii.  288. 

Voetius,  ii.  110,  112,  119. 

Vogel,  ii.  461. 

Vogt,  ii.  415. 

Vokkmar,  i.  54. 

Volkel,  ii.  210. 

Voltaire,  ii.  319,  381. 

Voluntas  antecedent,  consequens,  i.  410,  see 
Oehryia ;  signi,  beneplaciti,  414. 

Vowel  points  inspired,  ii.  244. 

Vridankes  Bescheidenheit,  ii.  12. 

Vulgate  version,  ii.  230. 

Wafers,  consecrated,  ii.  101. 

Wakefield,  Gilbert,  ii.  422. 

Wagner ,  J.,  ii.  119. 

Wagner,  R.,  ii.  415. 

Wake,  Abp.,  ii.  183,  189,  298 ;  on  foreigi 
orders,  291. 

Walceus,  ii.  215. 


INDEX. 


557 


Walafried  Strabo ,  ii.  90. 

Walch ,  C.  W.  F.,  ii.  496,  498;  on  Felix,  37. 

Watch ,  ,T.  G-.,  ii.  392. 

Waldenses,  i.  384,  430,  ii.  69,  71;  on  pen¬ 
ance,  109,  Ill ;  allegorizing  on  penance, 
111 ;  on  purgatory,  127,  128. 

Waldschmidt,  ii.  507. 

Wallis,  ii.  329,  332. 

Walker,  George,  ii  191. 

Walker ,  James,  ii.  446. 

Walter  St.  Victor,  i.  395,  396. 

Warburton,  ii.  384,  410.  4 

Ward,  W.  G.,  ii.  426,  459. 

Wardlaw,  ii.  422,  431,  435,  471. 

Wardley ,  ii.  451. 

Ware,  Henry,  ii.  441. 

Washing  of  feet,  ii.  209,  305,  514. 

Water  of  baptism ,  mystical  sense,  ii.  84 ; 
substitutes,  84. 

Waterland,  ii.  183,  184,  188,  210,  213  ;  on 
Athanasian  creed,  i.  269 ;  on  baptism,  ii. 
366 ;  lay  baptism,  369. 

Waterlandians,  ii.  209. 

Watson,  Rd.,  ii.  381,  393,  418. 

Watson ,  Thomas,  ii.  183,  191. 

Way  land,  ii.  449. 

Webster,  ii.  213. 

Wegscheider ,  ii.  398,  506  ;  on  religion,  462  ; 
on  atonement,  499. 

Weigel,  ii.  154,  155,  371  ;  on  person  of 
Christ,  350. 

Weishaupt ,  ii.  381. 

Weisse,  ii.  409,  410,  471 ;  on  Trinity,  480. 

Weissenborn  on  pantheism,  ii.  475. 

Weissmann,  C.  E.,  ii.  377. 

Weizs acker,  ii.  503. 

Welch ,  ii.  434. 

Wells,  ii.  213. 

Wendelin,  ii.  170,  173,  175,  176,  300;  on 
providence,  341. 

Werenfels,  ii.  178,  180,  247,  377. 

Wes  el,  John,  i.  410;  on  the  church,  ii.  71,  73. 

Wesel,  synod,  ii.  165. 

Wesley,  John,  ii.  391,  393,  423,  425,  506 ;  on 
interpretation,  428,  430;  on  being  of  God, 
433,  437. 

Wessel,  John,  i.  409,  410,  444,  457  ;  on  Trin¬ 
ity,  458,  468;  demonology,  478;  image 
of  God,  ii.  21  ;  freedom,  22 ;  Christology, 
40  ;  atonement,  47,  52  ;  regeneration,  53 ; 
faith,  69;  the  church,  71,  73;  opus  ope- 
ratum,  80;  Lord’s  Supper,  102;  transub- 
stantiation,  104,  107  ;  on  penance,  109, 
111 ;  on  purgatory,  127. 

Wessenberg  and  his  school,  ii.  456. 

West ,  ii.  226. 

West,  Samuel,  ii.  437. 

West ,  Stephen,  ii.  435,  437. 

Western  Chur ch,\. 239,385,453,ii.25 :  s eeLatin. 

Westminster  Assembly ,  ii.  169,  182. 

Westminster  Confession ,  on  original  sin,  ii. 
259;  decrees,  freedom,  redemption,  276; 
on  predestination,  281 ;  the  church,  292  ; 
the  sacraments,  304,  305  ;  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  309,  321 ;  descent  to  hell,  354 ; 
on  atonement,  357  ;  active  and  passive 
obedience,  359 ;  baptism,  368,  369 ;  on 
lay  baptism,  369,  370. 


Westminster  Confession  in  New  England,  it 
192. 

Westphal,  ii.  319. 

Wette :  see  Be  Wette. 

Wetmore,  J.,  ii.  448. 

Wetstein,  ii.  383,  385,  413,  478,  519. 
Whately,  ii.  423,  427,  519. 

Whedon,  ii.  448. 

Whelpley,  ii.  443. 

Whew  ell,  ii.  425. 

Whichcote,  ii.  193. 

Whiston,  Wm.,  195,  213,  225,  226. 
Whitaker,  Wm.,  ii.  185. 

Whitby,  ii.  195,  213,  227,  371. 

White,  Francis,  ii.  297. 

Whitefteld,  ii.  393,  413,  425,  432,  435,  506. 
Whiigift,  ii.- 184. 

Wicel,  George,  ii.  198. 

Wieland,  ii.  381. 

Wiest,  ii.  456. 

Wigand,  John,  ii.  152. 

Wiggers,  L  306,  310. 

Wigglesworth,  ii.  448. 

Wilber  force ,  H.  W.,  ii.  426,  459. 

Wilberforce,  R.  I.,  ii.  426. 

Wilber  force ,  Bp.  Samuel,  ii.  426. 

Wilberforce,  Wm.,  ii.  425. 

Will  of  God,  i.  452  ;  as  antecedent  and  con¬ 
sequent,  332,  470,  474. 

Willard,  Samuel,  ii.  193. 

William :  see  Occam. 

William  of  Auvergne,  ii.  17. 

William  of  Champeaux,  i.  392,  394. 

William  of  Paris,  i.  421;  on  atonement,  it 
49. 

Williams ,  ii.  182. 

Williams ,  Ed.,  ii.  184,  420. 

Williams,  Rowland,  ii.  429. 

Willis,  ii.  205. 

Wilkins,  D.,  ii.  296. 

Willett,  Andrew,  ii.  297. 

Wills  in  Christ,  i.  183,  ii.  35 :  see  Monothelites, 
Wilson,  Daniel,  ii.  425. 

Wilson,  J.  L.,  ii.  443. 

Wilson,  J.  P.,  ii.  443. 

Wilson ,  Matthias,  ii.  194. 

Wilson,  Thomas,  ii.  418. 

Wimpina,  ii.  144,  198. 

Winchester,  ii.  451. 

Wine  in  Eucharist,  i.  207. 

Winer,  ii.  406  ;  on  Arminians,  270  ;  on  sao* 
rifice  of  mass,  310. 

Wingen,  ii.  168. 

Wisdom,  i.  115,  123,  125,  244,  466,  469. 
Wise,  John,  ii.  298. 

Wiseman ,  ii.  459  ;  on  Amphilochius,  i.  361. 
Wislicenus,  ii.  411,  466. 

Wissowatius,  ii.  210. 

Witasse,  ii.  199. 

Witches,  i.  477,  ii.  341. 

Witherspoon,  ii.  438. 

Withholding  of  cup,  ii.  308  :  see  Cup. 
Wittenberg  Divines,  ii.  288. 

Wittenberg  University ,  ii.  148. 

Witsius,  ii.  170,  174. 

Wodrow,  ii.  192. 

Wolf,  ii.  376,  389,  398. 

Wolfenbutiel  Fragments,  ii.  378,  384,  490. 


558 


INDEX. 


WoUebius,  ii.  170,  172;  Christology,  352 ;  on 
Christ’s  obedience,  358. 

WoUner ,  ii.  389. 

Woltersdorj J  ii.  388. 

Wolzogen ,  ii.  210. 

Woodbridge,  John,  440. 

Woods ,  Leonard,  440. 

Woolston,  ii.  222. 

Worcester  Council ,  ii.  113. 

Worcester,  N.,  ii.  441. 

Word,  the,  i.  244:  see  Logos. 

Word  of  God ,  i.  421 ;  ii.  231,  303,  465. 

•  Wordsworth,  C.,  i.  423,  428,  429. 

Works,  i.  189,  ii.  67,  281,  289,  503  ;  of  pen¬ 
ance,  109;  of  supererogation,  68,  70. 

World,  end  ofj  ii.  119:  see  End,  Eschatology. 

Worship  of  Angels,  i.  141 ;  forhjdden,  338 ; 
of  images,  i.  229,  239 ;  of  saints,  ii.  74, 
301 ;  of  Virgin,  30. 

Worthington,  Wm.,  ii.  418. 

Wunden-homilieen,  ii.  392. 

Wurtemberg  Confession,  on  angels,  ii.  341. 

Wycliffe,  John  de,  L  408  ;  works,  409 ;  on 
faith,  423  ;  atonement,  ii.  47,  51 ;  on  pre¬ 
destination,  63  ;  indulgences,  7  0  ;  univer¬ 
sal  priesthood,  72 ;  on  number  of  sacra¬ 
ments,  80 ;  on  opus  operatum,  81,  83 ; 
confirmation,  87,  88 ;  on  transubstantia- 
tion,  104,  107  ;  on  Antichrist,  121 ;  pur¬ 
gatory,  127,  128. 

Wyttenbach ,  D.,  ii.  378. 

Xenaias,  i.  281. 

Ximenes,  i.  408. 

Tates,  ii,  422. 

Tiondrup,  i.  257. 

Taraa^f,  i.  81. 


Yvon,  ii.  177. 

Young,  Brigham,  ii.  452. 

Young  Hegelians ,  ii.  407. 

Zacharias,  ii.  383,  386. 

Zacharias  of  Chrysopolis,  ii.  108. 

Zanchius,  ii.  172,  175,  176,  272. 

Zeitschrift  f  christl.  Wissenschaft ,  ii.  410. 

Zeller,  ii.  409. 

Zend,  i.  113. 

Zeno ,  Emperor,  i.  280. 

Zeno  of  Verona,  i.  245. 

Zenobia ,  i.  248. 

Zerbolt,  i.  431. 

Zigabemes,  i.  383,  385,  423,  ii.  26. 

Zinzendorf  ii.  391,  457,  491,  496,  497,  506, 
510  ;  on  Trinity,  479. 

Zollikoffer,  ii.  385,  486. 

Zosimus,  i.  298. 

Zurich,  ii.  413  ;  reform  in,  159. 

Zurich,  confession,  ii.  164,  165. 

Zurich ,  Disputation,  ii.  160. 

Zurich ,  Letters,  on  Calvinism  in  England,  ii. 
185. 

Zwingle ,  ii.  140,  159;  works,  160  ;  influence, 
162 ;  Fidei  Ratio,  162 ;  on  Anabaptists, 
209,  236  ;  on  Scripture,  230  ;  inspiration, 
242  ;  original  rectitude,  253  ;  original  sin, 
256  ;  decrees,  273  ; .  on  virtues  of  heathen, 
277;  priesthood,  294;  on  discipline,  299; 
sacraments,  303,  306 ;  on  Lord’s  Sup¬ 
per,  309,  312  ;  on  intermediate  state,  326 ; 
preservation,  340;  Satan,  341;  incarna¬ 
tion,  345  ;  alloeosis,  346 ;  atonement,  356 ; 
baptism,  364,  366,  515. 

Zwinglian  sacraments,  ii.  303. 

Zwickau  prophets,  ii.  154,  155,  209. 

Zwicker ,  ii.  213,  332. 


u 


I 


Date  Due 


- - - - — - - - - 


